No Giselle in Disney parks?

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Right, but live-action films rarely get exploited in the parks to the degree that animation does. There really wasn't much done for the Lone Ranger, for example, and that was before it flopped.
Live action films also rarely have the consumer product push that was behind Enchanted. It really was massive. Almost every Princess toy was replicated in a Giselle versions. Some of the dolls were even done twice with there being a wedding dress version and a curtain dress version. A push that big is not normal even for animation. Disney thought they had something huge.
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Live action films also rarely have the consumer product push that was behind Enchanted. It really was massive. Almost every Princess toy was replicated in a Giselle versions. Some of the dolls were even done twice with there being a wedding dress version and a curtain dress version. A push that big is not normal even for animation. Disney thought they had something huge.

Well, Disney thinks a lot of things at times that don't really work out in the long run. "Hey, let's make a western that costs over a quarter of a billion dollars!" I love the idea of a modern Lone Ranger movie, and even I think that's excessive.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
In part, I think it's not just the initial run success but long term viability. P&F has done well long term with merchandise and home video.

Enchanted did great business on video too. Over $88 million in US DVD sales alone (not counting Blu-ray, digital, rentals etc.). There was a reason a sequel was given serious consideration.

On an unrelated side story, I remember when parents would walk into the Disney Store and see the Giselle wedding costume for sale. The kid went nuts, then the parents saw the $100 price tag and and just went o_O

:hilarious:
 

JenniferS

When you're the leader, you don't have to follow.
Found this on Amazon...
51e66CzwbzL._SX425_.jpg

I thought I remembered there being some Giselle stuff when the film came out, but you're right; it's hard to find. I think her popularity just wore out.
I've never heard of her. Or the film.
What the heck was I doing in 2007 ?

I would say that the presence of Susan Sarandon is what turned me off, but the truth is, until this discussion, I had never heard of Giselle or Enchanted.
 

The Empress Lilly

Well-Known Member
That's using the answer to justify itself.... The decision to include her in the first place
Only the first part, that she is a princess because she is a princess. The second part is the more pertinent bit. Tiana is the only Black princess. This gives her meaning beyond merchandise and movie relevance. Tiana has a visible presence for reasons of diversity and identification too.
 

Tim Lohr

Well-Known Member
Julie Andrews does not own the rights to Mary Poppins in any way, shape, or form. Neither do Amy Adams, or Johnny Depp. In legal terms, your likeness as a character is not the same as your likeness elsewhere. That would be like saying that there could be no other voice given to Mickey Mouse than Walt, because he owned the right to voice Walt.

Merchandise can be a bit different, but Disney can have as many theme park actors/actresses play Giselle, Jack Sparrow, and Mary Poppins as they want. When they bought the rights to the books of Mary Poppins, they owned the intellectual property. When Julie Andrews signed on, she received some stipulation for her to play the character. When Johnny Depp signed on, he probably also agreed to some royalty amount for merchandising the Jack Sparrow likeness, etc. But, he has no control over the use of the character in the park.

Amy may have originated the character, but she does not own it.

These kinds of this can vary depending on how each individual actor/performer's contract is written up.

Robin Williams for example signed on to do the voice of the Genie the film of Aladdin, but had different stipulations about his name and likeness being not used to promote the movie, Disney didn't stick to the contract though and he sued them. In the parks though at the time, Robin Williams was a co-host of The Animation tour with Walter Cronkite at MGM and also the voice of Timekeeper in Tomorrowland, but because of this contract dispute he never did any kind of voice over work for the Genie in the parks, or toys and merchandise

Tom Hanks on the other hand does the voice of Woody in the Toy Story Films and this years Halloween special, but his brother Jim does the voice of Woody for all the toys and them park attractions, mainly because Tom Hanks is just too busy to all those things, and he and his brother apparently sound enough alike that Jim Hank got a pretty good job voicing Woody

Then you have some one like Josh Gad who does the voice of Olaf in the Frozen film, and also dose it for toys and the AA Olaf they have in the Frozen M&G in DL.

Plus Carrie Fisher has been making this joke for years that George Lucas owns her likeness, so every time she looks in the mirror she has to pay George Lucas a couple of bucks. Now that Disney owns Star Wars I guess they also own Carrie Fisher's likeness too? but I'm not sure if that's for real or just a joke she likes to tell

I don't know what the situation with Amy Adams, Julie Andrews, Johnny Depp, but along with Robin Williams, Tom Hanks, and Josh Gad, none of these people own the rights to these characters, but Disney needs to have contracts with them and pay them every time they use their voices/likenesses outside the films.
 
Last edited:

Tim Lohr

Well-Known Member
Right but everything you're referring to is voice work or merchandising. If they're going to sell something with the voice, then yes that's different. But an actor portraying the character isn't owned by the actor.

Also, Robin Williams never sued Disney, he just wanted to: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-11-25/entertainment/ca-60882_1_robin-williams. They also used his work well within their rights, he just thought they were underpaid.

My point is that it depends on the individual actors contracts, and each case is different. Something like Jack Sparrow, the look and weird physical performance of that character were invented by Johnny Depp, and depending on how his contract is written up may give him some kind of intellectual property rights to that character, and the same could be true of Mary Poppins/Julie Andrews and Amy Adams/Giselle.

With something like Avatar James Cameron most likely owns the intellectual property rights to Avatar, but 20th Century Fox produces and owns the distribution rights to the film, and Disney now owns the theme park rights to Avatar. Or with Marvel Comics, Disney now owns those characters, Paramount still seems to distribute to some of the films, Sony owns Spiderman, Fox owns X-men characters, and Universal owns the theme park right east of the Mississippi on certain characters... there's like an infinite amount of ways this kind of stuff can be sold and used or restricted by "whatever" legal clause or contract stipulation

at the end of the day... Giselle isn't' that popular anymore, that's most likely the reason you see her in the parks
 

Matt_Black

Well-Known Member
Another case about likeness- When filming the first Star Wars movie (so I've heard), Lucas couldn't afford to pay Mark Hamill what he was paying Fisher and Ford, so he offered him a deal. Hamill would get something like 1% of whatever the movie made and 10% of merchandise that had his likeness. Curiously enough, the earliest Star Wars merchandise featured Luke Skywalkers that looked nothing at all like Hamill to try and get around paying him.
 

Phonedave

Well-Known Member
Good live action example

I thnk your live action theory has legs.

The other thing about live action is it has to be a face character. So now you have to find people that look like an existing human face - not resemble a cartoon face. The you have to train them, pay them, they are face characters so they are actors guild, so they most likely have a longer contract. Being face actors, they are limited to the face that they can play as well.

Maybe they dont want to take the chance on a new, hard to match, face character.

-dave
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
The other thing about live action is it has to be a face character. So now you have to find people that look like an existing human face - not resemble a cartoon face. e

I thought about that too... But it seems like a complication more than a road block. Given they do it for some... Maybe it ups the ante and they have a higher threshold they feel they need to cross? Or they just try to avoid them when they aren't strong armed?

The simple 'they didn't think she was popular' is inconsistent with other entertainment choices and there has got to be more to it IMHO
 
Last edited:

asianway

Well-Known Member
I thnk your live action theory has legs.

The other thing about live action is it has to be a face character. So now you have to find people that look like an existing human face - not resemble a cartoon face. The you have to train them, pay them, they are face characters so they are actors guild, so they most likely have a longer contract. Being face actors, they are limited to the face that they can play as well.

Maybe they dont want to take the chance on a new, hard to match, face character.

-dave
Wdw face characters are not "actors guild"...the equity union governs FL, but face characters aren't in that union. This is why they don't have the freedoms DL allows their face characters
 

Zummi Gummi

Pioneering the Universe Within!
I thnk your live action theory has legs.

The other thing about live action is it has to be a face character. So now you have to find people that look like an existing human face - not resemble a cartoon face. The you have to train them, pay them, they are face characters so they are actors guild, so they most likely have a longer contract. Being face actors, they are limited to the face that they can play as well.

Maybe they dont want to take the chance on a new, hard to match, face character.

-dave

Face characters in WDW are not in Actor's Equity. Actor's Equity represents the performers (and a number of dancers) who sing live or perform in a live show. The Belle in Beauty and the Beast at DHS (but not the Belle who meets and greets at Epcot), the cast of (ahem) Hoop Dee Doo, some members of the FOLK cast, the Giggle Gang, Finding Nemo, the Citizens of Hollywood, Ariel in Voyage of the Little Mermaid (but not the puppeteers), Finding Nemo, etc. Those are Equity roles governed by Equity, with specific rules. They can't take non-union jobs or roles. The Belle in the DHS show could not fill in for the Belle meet and greet at Epcot, for instance. However, they are allowed to work more than one equity gig. One of Flora Long's friends is occasionally friends with Belle, too. That's just one example- there are many.
 
Last edited:

Phonedave

Well-Known Member
Face characters in WDW are not in Actor's Equity. Actor's Equity represents the performers (and a number of dancers) who sing live or perform in a live show. The Belle in Beauty and the Beast at DHS (but not the Belle who meets and greets at Epcot), the cast of (ahem) Hoop Dee Doo, some members of the FOLK cast, the Giggle Gang, Finding Nemo, the Citizens of Hollywood, Ariel in Voyage of the Little Mermaid (but not the puppeteers), Finding Nemo, etc. Those are Equity roles governed by Equity, with specific rules. They can't take non-union jobs or roles. The Belle in the DHS show could not fill in for the Belle meet and greet at Epcot, for instance. However, they are allowed to work more than one equity gig. One of Flora Long's friends is occasionally friends with Belle, too. That's just one example- there are many.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Would a non-face character in a show be Actors Equity as well?

I still think that finding a face that looks like a specific person (Amy Adams for instance) would be harder than finding a face that resembles a cartoon.

-dave
 

Zummi Gummi

Pioneering the Universe Within!
Thanks for clearing that up.

Would a non-face character in a show be Actors Equity as well?

I still think that finding a face that looks like a specific person (Amy Adams for instance) would be harder than finding a face that resembles a cartoon.

-dave

No problem!

By character...do you mean a fur character? If you do then the answer is no. Those performers are not in equity. A lot of shows have several different contracts with different unions. In BatB, Belle and the dancers are in Equity, but the fur characters aren't- they're just regular entertainment cast members. Even among Equity cast, there's a reason Disney is selective about who sings live- the Finding Nemo ensemble (which sings live every show) gets paid differently then the Beauty and the Beast ensemble, who lip syncs.
 

williamjaymonetti

New Member
In the Parks
Yes
I'm wondering if they're paying Julie Andrews for the rights to her "likeness" as Mary Poppins. I've heard conflicting reports about it from various people at different levels of entertainment management.
I don't believe they're paying Julie Andrews for her likeness. Or, if they are they have a specific agreement. The character of Mary Poppins does make appearances for Meet and Greets, Parades/Shows and will take photos with guests with their PERSONAL cameras/phones. However, Disney's Photopass does not take her picture with guests and her image does not appear on the My Disney Experience app in animated form next to her name like the rest of the characters. So I guess the agreement is they cant sell her face for a profit but she can appear in the parks.
I don't know why they couldn't come to the same agreement for Amy. The cost of her white gown is definitely outrageous however, they could have easily made a downsized version of it. They constantly update the Princesses attire anyways.
 

NelleBelle

Well-Known Member
After the movie, Disney did have Giselle dress-up dresses it sold in it's stores. I remember them because we would look at the dresses when we would take my then-1yr old son in to look at stuff (my mom longingly chiding me for having had 2 boys, saying, "why couldn't you have at least one girl")! 😂 I found this on eBay...
1601089058249.png
 

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

Back
Top Bottom