Is anyone else dissapointed by lack of AiW?

marcriss

Member
Recent history has shown that when Disney has an unexpected hit on their hands, they milk it for all its worth. Cars and High School Musical are good examples of this.

Considering the $1.021 billion Burton's Alice has made along with the millions of copies of it sold on DVD and Blu-ray I find it had to believe Disney will just forget about this like Bolt. With a 59 year old movie that still has selling power already having a presence in the park, it would be smart and simple to "plus" what already exists and to add to the hype of this new Fantasyland.

But the faries deserve thier place as Lebeau has already said numerous times.

I think the difference is the target market. Cars and HSM (I detest) appeal to young viewers who will play it to death. They will want all of the merchandise and it won't matter if it's new or old. Burton's Alice was not geared for kids and Disney missed the mark not pushing the classic Alice more as an alternative for kids. And they still haven't gotten all of the merchandise to the market. How long will that demand last for tweens/young adults and adults?

I would love to see them do more, but I just don't think they will.

As a side note, the Alice in Epcot was fantastic. She was one of the best live characters we've encountered. Of course she's Disney's Alice, not Burton's.
 

BrerFrog

Active Member
Sure. According to Disney's financial statements, PH is a 2-billion-dollar/year (and growing) franchise.

Also, the Fairies franchise appeals to an older demo than the Princesses. Princesses are #1 among girls 3-6 and Fairies are #1 among girls 6-9. That is key because it lets Disney hold on to this demo until they reach the tween/Disney Channel stage.

(This all comes from the notes in the 2009 financial statements.)

There's no mention of Alice because its not a franchise. It's just another film in the Disney library. Disney expects the Disney Fairies to track along the lines of the princesses and continue growing till about 4-billion a year before it levels off.

I know it is hard to compare the profits of a franchise to those of a couple of movies, but I think the recent box office results of AiW say a lot about the number of fans the character and that wondeful world have.

I am not going to say it is bigger than the Fairies', because as I said it is a tough, nearly impossible, comparison, but it is pretty considerable.

Besides, Alice appeals to a wider audience which is a major plus.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
I think the difference is the target market. Cars and HSM (I detest) appeal to young viewers who will play it to death. They will want all of the merchandise and it won't matter if it's new or old. Burton's Alice was not geared for kids and Disney missed the mark not pushing the classic Alice more as an alternative for kids. And they still haven't gotten all of the merchandise to the market. How long will that demand last for tweens/young adults and adults?

I would love to see them do more, but I just don't think they will.

I have no ability to guess how long the demand for Burton's Alice will last, but I assume some kind of noticeable child audience made up its box office attendance (39% of its opening day weekend audience was parents with kids for example) and that Alice in Wonderland in general has found new followers and ones who have another adaptation to take a liking too.

Well have to agree to disagree, because I personally don't see Disney not trying to do something more with a property related to a movie that's made more money than Finding Nemo, Pirates 1 and 3 or The Dark Knight. A Burton Mad Hatter met and greet in DHS is nice, but how hard would it be to make the Mad Tea Party look nicer or build a more attractive location to meet Alice and the White Rabbit in MK? I'm not suggesting building a new ride from scratch, but there are opportunities to push Alice stuff more.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
I know it is hard to compare the profits of a franchise to those of a couple of movies, but I think the recent box office results of AiW say a lot about the number of fans the character and that wondeful world have.

I am not going to say it is bigger than the Fairies', because as I said it is a tough, nearly impossible, comparison, but it is pretty considerable.

Besides, Alice appeals to a wider audience which is a major plus.

Burton's AiW was a big hit for a few reasons. Certainly the source material contributed. The collaboration between Burton and Depp was a draw. But I think the biggest factor in its success was that it was the 3-D movie that followed Avatar.

People were craving 3-D. They'd seen Avatar multiple times. Alice was the only 3-D movie out there for a couple of weeks. And 3-D tickets are more expensive. I think the timing of the 3-D release was the single biggest factor in Burton's Alice being a smash.

Regardless, I don't think the fact that Burton's Alice was a hit carries over much to the Disney animated version. Other than the source material and studio, what else do they have in common?

As far as appeal of the Disney Fairies franchise/juggernaut vs. the combined appeal of two (unrelated) Disney Alice adaptations, I would opt for the larger fanbase with a more narrow demographic (and lots of disposable income) over the much, much smaller fanbase that is more diverse.
 

Evil Genius

Well-Known Member
I just don't understand why people are demanding a presence of the Burton Alice film in ANY of the parks...

I love Burton's work...but that movie was just terrible! For the monstrous budget that flick had you certainly couldn't tell it on the screen.

I'd love to see Disney's original Alice represented more in the parks but Bruton's...nope...it was a dull, plodding, ill conceived movie.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
Well have to agree to disagree, because I personally don't see Disney not trying to do something more with a property related to a movie that's made more money than Finding Nemo, Pirates 1 and 3 or The Dark Knight. A Burton Mad Hatter met and greet in DHS is nice, but how hard would it be to make the Mad Tea Party look nicer or build a more attractive location to meet Alice and the White Rabbit in MK? I'm not suggesting building a new ride from scratch, but there are opportunities to push Alice stuff more.

I mostly agree with what you are saying here. There is an opportunity to do something with Alice.

I did feel the need to point out that the figures you referenced are world-wide grosses. In terms of domestic box office, Dark Knight ranks 3rd (below Avatar and Titanic), Nemo ranks 17th and Alice ranks 19th. Pirates 3 ranks 29th and Pirates 1 ranks 33rd.

Still 5th in worldwide gross is nothing to sneeze at. WDW attracts a worldwide audience.

Disney's in a bit of an odd position here. The Burton Alice is completely unrelated to the Disney Alice. Do you push one over the other? Will anyone care about Burton's Alice 5 years from now? 10?

I'd love for them to clean up the classic Alice attractions or even add to them. But I'd hate to see Burton's Alice in FL or even MK. Keep it in DHS.
 

Evil Genius

Well-Known Member
Disney's in a bit of an odd position here. The Burton Alice is completely unrelated to the Disney Alice. Do you push one over the other? Will anyone care about Burton's Alice 5 years from now? 10?

That's the question right there! In this humble man's opinion I'd have to say it's a resounding no...it won't be a viable franchise in the future.

There's SO much in Disney's Alice in Wonderland that could developed for the parks! To be honest I'd say it's probably one of, if not the top film in terms of attraction potential!
 

BrerFrog

Active Member
I just don't understand why people are demanding a presence of the Burton Alice film in ANY of the parks...

I love Burton's work...but that movie was just terrible! For the monstrous budget that flick had you certainly couldn't tell it on the screen.

I'd love to see Disney's original Alice represented more in the parks but Bruton's...nope...it was a dull, plodding, ill conceived movie.

I don't think those wishes have anything to do with the movie, but with the visuals themselves and how good they would look in the park. I agree that the movie is weak in its script, but that doesn't mean a great well-themed land and a couple of nice rides couldn't possibly be inspired by it.
 

Evil Genius

Well-Known Member
I don't think those wishes have anything to do with the movie, but with the visuals themselves and how good they would look in the park. I agree that the movie is weak in its script, but that doesn't mean a great well-themed land and a couple of nice rides couldn't possibly be inspired by it.


Understood, but to me personally I think the animated film's imagery fits the overall landscape of Fantasyland as it exist better than Burton's darker sensibilities.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
But I'd hate to see Burton's Alice in FL or even MK. Keep it in DHS.

I agree with this too.

Disney's in an odd position because I'm sure nobody within the company expected Burton's Alice to be this big. It would be wise for them to take it slow with any kind of park tie-in/merch push for either his or Walt's version. But it's worth trying IMO.

The biggest missed opportunity was not releasing Walt's Alice to Blu-ray in a combo pack deal. A DVD only re-issue with hardly any new supplements when a 2-Disc release already existed wasn't the best incentive to double (or triple) dip on the format. The "Un-Anniversary" Edition is about to cross the 900,000 copy mark though.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
I agree with this too.

Disney's in an odd position because I'm sure nobody within the company expected Burton's Alice to be this big. It would be wise for them to take it slow with any kind of park tie-in/merch push for either his or Walt's version. But it's worth trying IMO.

The biggest missed opportunity was not releasing Walt's Alice to Blu-ray in a combo pack deal. A DVD only re-issue with hardly any new supplements when a 2-Disc release already existed wasn't the best incentive to double (or triple) dip on the format. The "Un-Anniversary" Edition is about to cross the 900,000 copy mark though.

(This post got way long. Sorry for the rant.)

I was wondering how well that re-issue did. Not too shabby. We already own the previous 2-disc version. So we didn't pick up the latest re-issue. Although my daughter was convinced from the commericals that it was somehow different from what we had and she really wanted to buy the "new" Alice.

I'm sure no one saw Burton's Alice breaking out the way it did. I imagine expectations were that it would perform along the same lines as the Burton/Depp Wonka re-make. Like I said before, I think Alice benefitted tremendously from being in the right place at the right time. Namely, being the only 3-D release available when people had tired of watching Avatar.

If Maleficent gets made (which seems likely) I think Disney will be ready for it to succeed. Also, it won't be in direct competition with Sleeping Beauty the way Alice was with, well, Alice. You'll be able to do something with Maleficent at DHS without cannibalizing the original film.

Odds are, Maleficent probably won't be as successful as Alice (even if it turns out to be a superior film). There's no way to recreate that perfect timing again. But I suspect Disney will be more ready for whatever success it has.

Another factor is the the lifespan of live-action movies. Aside from films that have a tremendous cultural impact (Star Wars, Jaws, The Godfather) most live action films become culturally irrelevant pretty quickly. Even a lot of movies that were blockbusters in their time don't have a lot of staying power today. Look at ET. ET was the biggest movie in history through most of the 80's and well into the 90's. But now, it's a relic.

The three films I mentioned as having staying power were all from the 70s. It's hard for me to think of any live-action movie from the 80s or later that has a lot of staying power. I think that's because the way we experience movies started to change with home video.

It used to be that a hit movie would play for months. Some ran over a year. And then they would be re-released a few months later. There would be lines around the block. And people would see a movie over and over. A hit movie lasted in the public conscience for months if not years.

Little by little, movies became all about the opening weekend. In the 90s, they started opening every major release on multiple screens. Eventually, things got to a point where there was a major release on every screen every weekend. Movies became dispoable. These days, if you didn't catch a movie opening weekend, odds are you'll just wait for video.

(Thanks to anyone who stayed with me through all of that!)

Point being that basing any attraction on any live-action movie kind of puts an expiration date on it. Sure, something like Star Wars is likely to feel timeless as long as the franchise continues. And an attraction like the GMR plays on nostalgia. The live action Alice has the benefit of being based on a timeless story. But the film itself was kind of a fluke and will likely be forgotten in a few years.

Whereas animated films appeal primarily to kids. They grow up with them. And then they share their favorites with their own kids. So that keeps them perpetually relevant. That's less true today than it was in the days when these films were re-released for each generation. Also, animated features are no longer rare (and therefore less of an event). But the great ones still have more of a timeless quality than most live-action movies.

Hope I didn't drift too far off topic!
 

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

Back
Top Bottom