Eddie Sotto's take on the current state of the parks (Part II)

[Eddie Sotto]

I'm kind of fascinated by the case. He was late in making his claims so I'm wary of his coming up with the story or using "Black Pearl" in his pitch to Disney, the CDROM evidence is more compelling, but the allegedly misrepresented art,cropping and alleged manipulation in getting him to sign a release etc. makes me think he had something. If their case was that strong, then why would they have to show that art from another project?

Personally speaking (I have no evidence to offer, just an opinion) the story of those caves had little to do with the story of the movie. Meaning that they were living Pirates as Skeletons living down there. Ever since I was a kid they seemed like they were the evidence of the fact that "crime does not pay". The cobwebs on their bones said they were inanimate, and cursed for what they did, not hanging out till the moon rises. They seemed haunted yes, but they were abstracted scenes of long ago. The removed dialog of "Dead Men Tell No Tales" led me to believe that there were these stories being told for each unrelated vignette and then the master voice silenced the storyteller with "Dead Men Tell no Tales!". Then of course, we go back in time and discover them as they lived. Wow. What was your take on the story?

The company makes the point that there is a connection to the supernatural in the ride (talking skull, harpsicord playing, voices, etc.) and that Marc Davis did a sketch where a Pirate turns into a skeleton and back. That should be enough,no? ( the original claim says they stole the whole putting the coin back idea and pirates cursed thing) So there you have it. I wonder if the writers unearthed this very rare art to inspire them to write the movie, or was it found in a later search to justify the company position? We will never know. I guess it does not matter. I would think that lone sketch would be enough to make their case. I guess they needed more. The Art from Discovery Island was likely "the icing on their cake" to show that the moonlight turned the skeleton into a pirate. That art does not depict that at all and I wonder if they ever stated in writing that it was Marc's art and that it was from the ride and what it was meant to depict. Don't see that.

The tentacles!

 

[HMF]

I don't mind him saying Jack Sparrow a million times; I mind him (and everyone else) saying CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow a million times! It was a running joke in the movies that nobody called him "Captain"...

The search for Jack subplot just throws the whole logic of the ride into utter chaos.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

The search for Jack subplot just throws the whole logic of the ride into utter chaos.

True, but by the way the guests react, you'd think Johnny Depp was there in person.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

The search for Jack subplot just throws the whole logic of the ride into utter chaos.

Yeah... I like seeing him in there, but at the same time, I have to not think very hard about what's going on. Why are the townspeople protecting him? To them, he's just a pirate like any other. Oh no, there I go again...

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Your thoughts on the Starbucks on Main Street in the WDW MK?
http://micechat.com/32673-magic-kingdom-starbucks-main-street-bakery/

 

[HMF]

True, but by the way the guests react, you'd think Johnny Depp was there in person.

It's one thing to put a few Jack AA's into appropriate spots in the ride. It is another to change the ride to revolve around Jack in a nonsensical fashion.

 

[Eddie Sotto]

I think it's pretty simple. The Pirates are attacking the town because the mayor didn't give him up, and Jack is hiding in the chaos as they torch it.

 

[englanddg]

I think it's pretty simple. The Pirates are attacking the town because the mayor didn't give him up, and Jack is hiding in the chaos as they torch it.

Yes...but what's not well explained is...why?

Why would the town mayor not give him up?

 

[Californian Elitist]

Your thoughts on the Starbucks on Main Street in the WDW MK?
http://micechat.com/32673-magic-kingdom-starbucks-main-street-bakery/

In my opinion, for the most part, the Starbucks in MK looks nice. I like the style and decor. What I don't like are the common Starbucks snacks being sold in the store. I also don't like that Disney is selling Starbucks coffee beans in the store. That's just too much.

I'm hoping the Disneyland location doesn't turn out with Starbucks snacks. I have a feeling it won't, since Fiddler, Fifer & Practical is pretty tasteful.

 

[HMF]

Yes...but what's not well explained is...why?

Why would the town mayor not give him up?

Why would the mayor be hiding him in the first place is the even more pressing issue. Why would a public official be hiding a pirate who wants to steal the treasure of the town he is in charge of from other pirates who also want to steal his towns treasure and why would he risk being drowned in the process.

 

[englanddg]

Why would the mayor be hiding him in the first place is the even more pressing issue. Why would a public official be hiding a pirate who wants to steal the treasure of the town he is in charge of from other pirates who also want to steal his towns treasure and why would he risk being drowned in the process.

The spiral of confusion continues!

 

[Eddie Sotto]

Yes...but what's not well explained is...why?

Why would the town mayor not give him up?

He would have had he known. He did not know he was there.

 

[nytimez]

He would have had he known. He did not know he was there.

But the wife's words - "Don't tell him Carlos, don't be chicken" - suggest they know, but won't help... no? That's how I always interpret it.

 

[darthspielberg]

He would have had he known. He did not know he was there.

I do kind of like this story element. Jack causing chaos to those who don't even know who or where he is is pretty true to character.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

If we continue with the "Disneyland as a theatrical experience" metaphor with the posters of "coming attractions" under the train station, the big reveal of the castle, the lands as sets, etc. it really makes perfect sense why there would be background music during a big battle scene in Pirates, even if it doesn't come organically from the scene (I swear there is a name for that which escapes me!). Film scores are a huge part of the movies. How many big, dramatic scenes in movies are completely silent other than dialogue and sound effects? Not many.

That's a good point. Movies are infused with sound effects and a soundtrack, even though sometimes the audience doesn't notice this.

I think it was Richard Sherman who said that one of the biggest compliment he got for Mary Poppins was that somebody who saw the film, (thinking it was a musical), was pleasantly surprised to find that there, "weren't very many songs in it."

There are probably a ton of sound effects and soundtracks in the parks that most guests don't really take note of as "piped in" music.

One of the disadvantages of using a movie's score in an attraction is that the music wasn't made custom for the ride, IMO. Pirates soundtrack seems to work moderately well in the ride, but it almost over powers Barbosa's lines, and by referencing the film turns the scene into something a little bit less alive, like how a window display on main street brings up memories of the film.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

Why would the mayor be hiding him in the first place is the even more pressing issue. Why would a public official be hiding a pirate who wants to steal the treasure of the town he is in charge of from other pirates who also want to steal his towns treasure and why would he risk being drowned in the process.

The pirate dunking the mayor believes that Jack Sparrow has a treasure map . . . and he wants the mayor to give up Sparrow . . . but we don't really know what the map is for. I don't think the treasure map is for the "treasure room" at the end of the ride (at least not plausibly), as that looks to be just a locked room in the garrison where the Spanish have some treasure locked up, a treasure map presumably wouldn't mean anything regarding this treasure as it probably was a well known fact among those who lived in the town and had friends/relatives who helped guard this loot.

If the garisson was well guarded, as usual, then the map is useless. If you are going to burn down the garisson anyway, and kill all the guards, you don't need a map, just to check each room.

Why wouldn't the mayor give up an accused person to mob of pirates who is destroying his town? Rule of law for one thing. If the mayor is 100% ethical, he wouldn't bow to the pressure of armed thugs who demand Jack Sparrow . . . especially since they just want his "treasure map" and are not officials from another country who want to try Sparrow in a court of law.

Sparrow is eyeing a drunk pirate who has a "key" and a "treasure map" . . . do we really believe that this pirate got the key to the garisson treasure room, and then ambled outside to get drunk and blabber about it and the map?

I always took the ending scene as Jack stumbles onto this unguarded loot room in the Spanish garrison (due to fire and the pirates running amuck), not that that is the "treasure", though I see they might be implying that, there are a lot of plot holes.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think our last impression being Jack Sparrow free to endorse a life of crime is not a message I would ever support in a family ride. We had skeletons on the lift, dead, trying to drag their treasure out, but it caused them their demise.

Like the movies where the suitcase of cash they were chasing ends up blowing away in the wind.

The final scenes in the ride really drove home the point that these guys were paying the price for their shenanigans. Pirates locked up in a burning jail, the two moronic pirates shooting at each other with dynamite everywhere, plus the dead skeletons trying to push their treasure out, but dying in the process.

Yes, the greed in the final scene kinda leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. But the older version of the scenes served a purpose of morally cleansing the guest after the enjoyment of watching pirates steal stuff, like hats and food, and sell women! After all, guests frequently sing a long with the 'Yo Ho!'s', you became one of the marauding pirates.

The parting shot of the bumbling pirates on the verge of blowing themselves up, and trying to push treasure up a steep incline, remind us that we would never be so stupid to do that, hence we are not the pirates. When I see the Depp scene at the end, I think that perhaps a lot of modern day lawyers would see more than a bit of themselves in Captain Jack Sparrow . . . perhaps we all see a bit more of ourselves in Captain Jack Sparrow than we'd like to admit, even to ourselves.

Just a theory.

 

[Pixiedustmaker]

I think his case is so much stronger now that this whole "bait and switch" thing with the Artwork is out there.

. . .

If there was nothing to his claim, then why did they have to resort to using Art clearly marked from another job?

I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea if the guy has a case. But I think that there is just a 20% chance that Disney ripped off his idea:

1. The skeleton "steering" the boat in the Pirates ride is supposed to freak out guests by appearing, at first glance, to be alive. I gotta say that inspiration for "living" skeletons, a la the Skeleton Dance, is found right there in the ride.

2. Moonlight making the cursed become skeletons. A neat idea, but it seems to be something that was contrived in order to take advantage of the human to skeleton CGI effects, which really sell the film. Plus, in the ride, the lone living skeleton has a lighnting effect on him, which if you catch it at the right moment you might think he was a person. Only with this lightning do we see the "real" thing there, which is a skeleton. That's the horror, the pale moon light/lightning . . . revealing the hideous truth. I can 100% see a Disney person saying, "I love how in the ride the eery lightning lights up the skeleton we think is a person, do that in the film somehow." They'd tell the exec. that lightning wouldn't last very long, so somebody comes up with moonlight.

3. Convergence of ideas. Great minds think alike. The ride talks about the "cursed treasure", and there is a "living" skeleton in the ride, so I can easily see Disney coming up with the same idea.

4. I think that Disney has ripped-off story ideas before, such as the whole Lion King plot. So . . . it is certainly not outside the realm of possibility that Disney, (or whoever was hired to do the script) ripped off this guy. Certainly, whoever did the script researched pirates, and they may well have come across this guy's books.

Why the photo mislabeled? If it was intentional, it shows that Disney lawyers will break the rules to try to win . . . something that corporate lawyers are known to do. Not sure that it indicates culpability, but it is concerning.

 

[Cosmic Commando]

But the wife's words - "Don't tell him Carlos, don't be chicken" - suggest they know, but won't help... no? That's how I always interpret it.

I think you mean, "Don't tell him Carlos, don't be cheeee-ken!"

 

[neoshinok]

I'm kind of fascinated by the case...

I think this page http://disneylawsuit.com/2.html is the most revealing. The screenshot comparisons, story arcs, cast of characters and even dialogue parallels (including the 'Black Pearl' ship) are too much to be coincidence. I don't know what it takes to prove copyright infringement, especially against the muscle of Disney, but I would hope all of this would be enough.