Mickey’s (Faliure)magic OR The Non-Repeatability of the Film Theater Shows at the DLR

[BasiltheBatLord]

The CGI was hugely impressive at the time as it was the first time any of those 2D characters had been converted into 3D models (except for Kingdom Hearts, I guess). I still think they look good.

 

[Mac Tonight]

The CGI designs looked good for opening in 2003.

16 years has not been kind to it.

 

[brb1006]

The CGI was hugely impressive at the time as it was the first time any of those 2D characters had been converted into 3D models (except for Kingdom Hearts, I guess). I still think they look good.

Especially since the original show came out before Disney themselves decided to make fully CGI animated films. One of Mickey and Minnie's first appearances in CGI form (Not counting Muppet Vision) was in Mickey's Twice Upon A Christmas a year after Philharmagic debuted at Walt Disney World. It took until Mickey Mouse Clubhouse for Disney to get more familiar with designing Mickey and Friends in CGI form

 

[Ismael Flores]

Just like the Main St Cinema. And yet I don't really hear too many complaints that it should be removed due to low attendance...

the times i have been in there it has actually been full. its a small place that needs little upkeep and no castmembers to operate.

 

[DanielBB8]

The show look puny compared with an actual Imax type screen the show deserves.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Main Street Cinema is always worthless to me because there is nowhere to sit. How can someone relax when you have to stand the whole time?

The Cinema is not meant for people to lounge around and relax in, hence the absence of chairs and benches and the presence of screens.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

3D movies are the new Audio-Animatronic musicals that died out.

 

[Kram Sacul]

3D attractions still have a place in theme parks. Muppetvision 3D is still great to me and Philharmagic in MK is impressive. Shrinking it down and shoehorning it into a theater which wasn't built to show it properly is a disgrace.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

I like both but I think it’s a dying breed.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

I really like Captain EO especially the James Horner music but I think it might be a risky move in these dark and disturbing Trumpian times for them to bring Michael Jackson back to Disneyland.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

Theme parks are probably one of the only places where I think 3D is acceptable, never understood the fad of shoehorning 3D into theatrical releases and glad that it's died out.

 

[NobodyElse]

While we're on the subject of films at the parks, though... Remember:

Pre-1983, where the Pinocchio ride is now, the Fantasyland Theater used to show 3 Mickey Mouse short films all day long. At one time it was a "C" Ticket attraction. But this was in the days before home video or cable, so the chance to see Mickey's Trailer, Thru the Mirror and The Band Concert made it a nice little air-conditioned feature for many years. I enjoyed it a lot... along with the other dozen or so people in the theater at any given time. (You just entered and exited at any point in the rotation).

...and then you could get an almost ice-cold cup of Welch's grape juice.

 

[Californian Elitist]

This is why it isn't fun to me. If I am watching something I'd like to sit back and relax. I don't see the appeal of having to stand and watch cartoons.

I take it you don’t like Fantasmic!, World of Color, or any of the street shows then?

 

[Rich T]

...and then you could get an almost ice-cold cup of Welch's grape juice.

I'd almost forgotten about that! It was so good!!!

 

[Rich T]

This is why it isn't fun to me. If I am watching something I'd like to sit back and relax. I don't see the appeal of having to stand and watch cartoons.

Look at it more as a great little animation/silent film museum, taking you back in time for just a few moments of comedy. I rarely stay to watch an entire short.

 

[Rich T]

Theme parks are probably one of the only places where I think 3D is acceptable, never understood the fad of shoehorning 3D into theatrical releases and glad that it's died out.

When done well, it's amazing. A good film shot with effective 3D shown on a huge screen is a fantastic experience. Take my favorite 3D presentation for a movie--How to Train Your Dragon: The film has a lot of emphasis on texture such as scales, iron, stone, fur, etc. It looked like you could reach into the screen and touch those creatures and surfaces. Not to mention the flying scenes had amazing depth, almost creatiing a sense of acrophobia in spots. Flames looked more real, ashes seemed to drift over the audience. It was fantastic.

I'm curious, though: why do you find theatrical 3D unacceptable? Now, I realize *most* movies released in 3D don't use it well, but the good ones are well worth the extra money for me.

 

[BasiltheBatLord]

I'm curious, though: why do you find theatrical 3D unacceptable? Now, I realize *most* movies released in 3D don't use it well, but the good ones are well worth the extra money for me.

They always felt like a gimmick that didn't add anything major to the picture. The biggest issue I had/have with 3D is the glasses, specifically that they mute the color palette of the film. Muting the entire color palette of the film for 3D depth effects which, imo, do not improve the actual film isn't worth it.

Now in theme parks spectacle is part of the experience, which is why it makes perfect sense for me to see a 3D film in a theme park whose entire point is "look at this thing popping out at you!"

 

[captveg]

Theme parks are probably one of the only places where I think 3D is acceptable, never understood the fad of shoehorning 3D into theatrical releases and glad that it's died out.

There are three types of 3D films for the cinema:

1. 3D used by an auteur who understands storytelling through composition, where the idea of depth to an image is used to contextualize the shot as part of the story experience. Examples include Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, Scorsese's Hugo, and Lee's Life of Pi. And, of course, Avatar (Cameron is masterful at knowing where to place the camera).

2. 3D used to capture the gimmicky nature of it for the pure fun of it, often using pop-out effects as silly moments to purposely break the 4th wall. Examples include House of Wax, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and the majority of the 50s/80s 3D films. The theme park attractions fall under this category.

3. 3D used as pointless add on to sell more expensive tickets. Most of the modern 3D films fall under this category, especially over the last 4-5 years as the majority of 3D movies are conversions not designed to use 3D photography. When I went to see Captain Marvel they screwed up by having our 2D showing accidentally show the movie in 3D. They resolved this by giving us all 3D glasses and not charging us for the extra ticket price, but from an aesthetic storytelling standpoint the 3D did nothing to improve the movie. It was pointless, because the movie was never designed to incorporate 3D into how it decided to tell its story.

Unfortunately, the auteurs have mostly moved on, and unlike the 50s and 80s there isn't a demand for the gimmicky 3D experience for a feature film these days, so we are left with the pointless 3D of category #3 at the cinemas.

 

[captveg]

The biggest issue I had/have with 3D is the glasses, specifically that they mute the color palette of the film. Muting the entire color palette of the film for 3D depth effects which, imo, do not improve the actual film isn't worth it.

This is mostly a projection issue. Movie cineplexes are in the habit of having the brightness levels too low for 3D screenings.

 

[mickEblu]

The last film I saw in 3D I believe was Last Jedi and the 3D Glasses made the movie so dark I vowed I was done with 3D for a while.