Isn’t that one of the reasons H got the can?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News EPCOT's Harmonious to be replaced with new nighttime spectacular Luminous
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
Isn’t that one of the reasons H got the can?
Meaning, if they just put out another show that is inferior to IlumiNations and doesn’t draw the crowds, then what?!
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
Then they should go back and use the illuminations music with new modern tech and effects without anchoring massive barges all day in the lagoon
They won’t though cause that are forcing IP in Epcot
TTA94
Well-Known Member
It would have been awesome to have the RoE barges with updated moving fountains, lighting, lasers, fire effects. And a new modern globe or drones.
What we’ll be getting sounds like just EF with a IP filled soundtrack.
Mickey1984
Active Member
^^THIS^^
There's always EF.............
However......That's a Problem if TDO can't do better than HEA/EF..................
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Not sue I understand how pulling this from D+ serves as a cost cutting measure.
Are their server storage costs really that high?
I suppose they're paying royalties to the various parties involved but I would have to guess it's an arrangement similar to something like Spotify or an Apple Music sub where they're only paying for viewership and if people are watching, that means it's adding value and if they're not, people likely aren't getting paid.
... or they could be using this as a way to try removing this collectively from the public's memory since it serves as a reminder of something that ultimately failed and this is as good of an excuse as any to pull it?
Are their server storage costs really that high?
I suppose they're paying royalties to the various parties involved but I would have to guess it's an arrangement similar to something like Spotify or an Apple Music sub where they're only paying for viewership and if people are watching, that means it's adding value and if they're not, people likely aren't getting paid.
... or they could be using this as a way to try removing this collectively from the public's memory since it serves as a reminder of something that ultimately failed and this is as good of an excuse as any to pull it?
Yes, the issue is licensing from the (co-)owner and...
Residual (entertainment industry) - Wikipedia
EeyoreFan#24
Well-Known Member
I thought the same thing. Viewership vs royalty vs public image. I think they aren’t able to justify the public image price with the viewership. The royalties are just a bonus.
Also, I’d be really interested to see an imagineering story on this, but it probably won’t be for 30 years or so until it’s a “cool historical blooper story” and everyone involved is over it. If anything at all.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
They are removing lots of content including made for Disney+ series like Earth to Ned (Henson) and World according to Jeff Goldblum. They are also removing Disney movies like Magic Camp. Really strange move in my opinion.
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
Which I get but - and I may be wrong - I thought most streaming deals for content created like this were structured so that the vast majority of this only came into play with viewership, meaning there was almost no cost just to have it available which was one of the things that helped make something like D+ and all their self-produced content potentially profitable.Yes, the issue is licensing from the (co-)owner and...
Residual (entertainment industry) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I know in some cases, it's financially beneficial in the short-term to ax something and take the write-down or to ax it so it can be used somewhere else, similar to what's been happening over the last year with HBO Max but obviously, the costs for producing this are already sunk and nobody else is going to be paying to show this on a competing platform.
Not suggesting they aren't saving something - just seems like it would be a very minor drop-in-the-bucket but I guess, for something they want to put behind them, if it saves anything at all, it's a good excuse to pull it.
No conspiracy theories, here - just seems odd unless the "cost savings" are just a part of the decision... which, I guess is understandable.
Last edited:
I guessing they have a home for those content on some other service.
Kamikaze
Well-Known Member
There should be. But it should be under water.
If only they had a GOAT nighttime show that takes place on a body of water that they could replicate...
MrPromey
Well-Known Member
And if only they had a body of water that's of comparable size with a cement bottom to build something like that in.
Unfortunately, World Showcase lagoon is considerably larger and they'd need to come up with an entirely different system for use since nothing's going to be raising form the deep each night from that like in CA.
The walkway around the lagoon isn't an amphitheater.
Putting show items *on* the lake means only the people in the first row lakeside get to see it.
They could put several very portable barges nearer the edges of the lake, like the Electric Boat Show on Seven Seas.
They could use drones.
They could use kites... nevermind.
They could use Bellagioesque fountains.
Putting show items *on* the lake means only the people in the first row lakeside get to see it.
They could put several very portable barges nearer the edges of the lake, like the Electric Boat Show on Seven Seas.
They could use drones.
They could use Bellagioesque fountains.
TTA94
Well-Known Member
Now that be awesome to have something like the Bellagio fountains in WS. Both day and night.
ppete1975
Well-Known Member
world according to jeff goldblum was great. And Earth to Ned was really well done, Disney really could have made money if they pursued it further.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to Hulu, they are cutting content from there as well.
Agreed, both were well done. Seems very strange to cut them. it just further proves to me that Iger and company really don’t know what they are doing with this business.
No, not Hulu.
But other streamers that do Pay on Demand, or FAST.
Heck, even Disney could spin out a FAST service so as to put a check on licensing and residuals and peg it to ad income.
GhostHost1000
Premium Member
I’m not sure iger knows what he is doing in any business here lately