Pixie Hollow vs Wonderland

[lebeau]

It has as much to do with the fact that Wonderland would be a fantastic idea as much as Pixie Hollow being a terrible one. You're talking about a land with wacky and yet beautiful visuals, several memorable scenes to replicate and identifiable characters to build around... not to mention it would have a much more universal appeal than PH. Not sure what more you could ask for, although for some reason, it's a pipe dream while PH was almost put through. Sigh.

Plain and simple, the average person barely remembers that Disney ever adapted Alice in Wonderland. And they aren't especially fond of it. It's so far out of public awareness as not to matter. On the other hand, people are very aware of PH. And a lot of parents would schedule a vacation to take their kids there.

I'm sure as die-hard Disney fans, this isn't something most people here want to acknowledge. But if you shake the pixie dust out of your eyes, you'll see it's true.

 

[HM Spectre]

The pushback on PH is that by making them direct to video, Disney itself signaled to everyone "We don't really expect this to be any good. We're just trying to make a quick buck." The fanbase has simply reacted appropriately. If Disney thought it was making movies that would stand the test of time, they'd get released theatrically. Twenty years from now, everyone will still know who Tinkerbell is, but the rest of the new characters from these movies will be afterthoughts.

Exactly. A release doesn't go DTV if a company thinks it's good enough to make any kind of profit in movie theaters. It's different if you're a small company and don't have the upfront money to bring a movie to theaters and promote it, but this is Disney we're talking about. Essentially, Disney making a video go DTV is an admission that they think strongly that it would bomb in the box office for a variety of reasons (terrible quality, lack of appeal, etc.) If they're admitting up front that a Pixie Hollow movie isn't worth putting out because it doesn't have enough universal appeal to make money, I'm not sure why they'd try to put it out there universally in their park.

 

[lebeau]

Exactly. A release doesn't go DTV if a company thinks it's good enough to make any kind of profit in movie theaters. It's different if you're a small company and don't have the upfront money to bring a movie to theaters and promote it, but this is Disney we're talking about. Essentially, Disney making a video go DTV is an admission that they think strongly that it would bomb in the box office for a variety of reasons (terrible quality, lack of appeal, etc.) If they're admitting up front that a Pixie Hollow movie isn't worth putting out because it doesn't have enough universal appeal to make money, I'm not sure why they'd try to put it out there universally in their park.

Wow. This is misinformed.

Wanna know a secret? Disney releases these things straight to video because of Wal-Mart.

Yep. Wal-Mart is powerful enough to greatly impact the way Disney releases things.

Back in the day, Disney used to release these sorts of things to theaters. They saw it as free advertising for the direct-to-video release where they expected to make their real money.

But then they had a run-in with Wal-Mart over the video release of Return to Neverland. Disney argued that since it was released in theaters and had the Disney name, Wal-Mart should promote it as they would any other Disney animated feature.

Wal-Mart argued that they have a formula for how they promote theatrical releases. And given the box office of Return to Neverland, it didn't merit much of a presence in their stores.

Wal-Mart is big enough to make or break a direct-to-video release. And Disney quickly realized they would get more of a push from Wal-Mart if they skipped the theater alltogether in the future.

These days, direct-to-video releases are developed with no thought of a theaterical release. It's not a reflection of their relative quality. They go in saying, "This is designed to be a direct-to-video release."

If they thought it was bad, they wouldn't go to the trouble of making it.

(This is a vast departure from the days when Disney was raping its film library for a quick buck in the direct-to-video market. That was one of the single worst decisions in the company's history and is largely responsible for the Disney brand losing its prestige.)

 

[HM Spectre]

Plain and simple, the average person barely remembers that Disney ever adapted Alice in Wonderland. And they aren't especially fond of it. It's so far out of public awareness as not to matter. On the other hand, people are very aware of PH. And a lot of parents would schedule a vacation to take their kids there.

I'm sure as die-hard Disney fans, this isn't something most people here want to acknowledge. But if you shake the pixie dust out of your eyes, you'll see it's true.

It doesn't matter if anyone remembers they adapted it (which I'd argue they do), it matters that the area that could be created based on it would be picture perfect for FL and Alice is an IP that is evidently being underutilized. When Tim Burton (who isn't always successful at the box office) can turn Alice in Wonderland into a $330M domestic, $1 billion global franchise, it's clear there's a market and demand there.

Pixie Hollow on the other hand, is a bunch of mass produced books and movies along with an MMO that is targeted at a very narrow 6-12 year old girl demographic. It's more of a lead in to direct them to other Disney brands than something that should stand alone. Sure, it'll probably pull in that age group and their parents along with them, but why target such a narrow demographic when you can appeal to a wider group of people?

 

[lebeau]

It doesn't matter if anyone remembers they adapted it (which I'd argue they do), it matters that the area that could be created based on it would be picture perfect for FL and Alice is an IP that is evidently being underutilized. When Tim Burton (who isn't always successful at the box office) can turn Alice in Wonderland into a $330M domestic, $1 billion global franchise, it's clear there's a market and demand there.

Pixie Hollow on the other hand, is a bunch of mass produced books and movies along with an MMO that is targeted at a very narrow 6-12 year old girl demographic. Sure, it'll probably pull in that age group and their parents along with them, but why target such a narrow demographic when you can appeal to a wider group of people?

Regarding Burton's AiW:

1. Burton's Alice doesn't belong in the MK
2. It's box office, while impressive, was something of a fluke. It benefitted greatly from being the only 3-D movie in theaters directly following Avatar.

As for your reasons for wanting to see AiW in FL, they are valid from a fan perspective. No doubt it would make a wonderful (no pun intended) addition if done properly. But the decision makers aren't looking at this from a fan perspective. From a business perspective, Alice is an old, mostly forgotten movie with limited retail prospects. Whereas PH is a cash cow.

Your comments about demo carry some weight and are apparently the reason Disney is rethinking the entire FLE project.

Even so, people need to get over their irrational knee-jerk reaction to the PH franchise and the direct-to-video medium.

 

[HM Spectre]

Back in the day, Disney used to release these sorts of things to theaters. They saw it as free advertising for the direct-to-video release where they expected to make their real money.

This is all I'm saying... when you create something with the expectation that you're going to make most of your money in a direct to video release, you're saying something about the product itself. Simply put (and as you admitted in your post), these videos can't carry water in theaters.

If these videos were capable of doing well in the box office, they'd be able to have a presence in Wal Mart stores, wouldn't have to go DTV and there wouldn't be any problem in the first place because Wal Mart could deal with them the way they deal with normal Disney movies.

I never said a direct to video release had to be low quality (some have been great), just that low quality, lack of appeal or lack of promotion $ is normally what creates a scenario that a film can't perform in the box office and has to go DTV. Since Disney can promote whatever it wants, I'm filling in the blanks.

 

[HM Spectre]

Regarding Burton's AiW:

1. Burton's Alice doesn't belong in the MK
2. It's box office, while impressive, was something of a fluke. It benefitted greatly from being the only 3-D movie in theaters directly following Avatar.

As for your reasons for wanting to see AiW in FL, they are valid from a fan perspective. No doubt it would make a wonderful (no pun intended) addition if done properly. But the decision makers aren't looking at this from a fan perspective. From a business perspective, Alice is an old, mostly forgotten movie with limited retail prospects. Whereas PH is a cash cow.

Your comments about demo carry some weight and are apparently the reason Disney is rethinking the entire FLE project.

Even so, people need to get over their irrational knee-jerk reaction to the PH franchise and the direct-to-video medium.

1. Agreed, but it does belong in a merchandise shop. If you create an Alice in Wonderland based off the old animation, the new movie could draw interest to the old and the new could be used to push the new merch as well. Even if they aren't directly related, they can play off each other.

2. This is true, although as has been evidenced recently, just putting a movie in 3D doesn't sell it nowadays, it needs to interest people as well and Alice pulls it off despite having the traditional Tim Burton "weird" feeling that usually turns off certain moviegoers every time.

Trust me, I have nothing against the PH franchise. It's been well put together and is a great lead in for little girls to get into the Princess lines and other Disney franchises. It does its job effectively and makes money in the process. My problem isn't in the line, it's when a niche line like PH is put into the plans for its own area in MK. Let PH do what it was meant to do, but let the wide demo franchises get the attractions.

 

[lebeau]

This is all I'm saying... when you create something with the expectation that you're going to make most of your money in a direct to video release, you're saying something about the product itself. Simply put (and as you admitted in your post), these videos can't carry water in theaters.

That's not what I was saying. That's like saying that TV shows are inherently inferior to movies*. TV, movies, DTV are all just different medium. Disney should be making their best efforts across the board.

If these videos were capable of doing well in the box office, they'd be able to have a presence in Wal Mart stores, wouldn't have to go DTV and there wouldn't be any problem in the first place because Wal Mart could deal with them the way they deal with normal Disney movies.

You may have missed the point that Wal-Mart puts a higher priority on a direct-to-video release than a theaterical release that performs moderately.

By the way, there have been plenty of Disney theatrical releases that have been dumped by Wal-Mart.

I never said a direct to video release had to be low quality (some have been great), just that low quality, lack of appeal or lack of promotion $ is normally what creates a scenario that a film can't perform in the box office and has to go DTV. Since Disney can promote whatever it wants, I'm filling in the blanks.

You're filling them in incorrectly. It's not like Disney put together a PH movie and then said, "Nope, this will never cut it at the box office. Let's dump it on video." (Although that happens and it's part of why DTV has such a bad rep.

PH was designed to play to the strengths of the DTV market. They wanted to be able to release a series of relatively inexpensive films that would appeal to a specific demo rather than a mainstream audience. That made DTV a perfect fit. It has nothing to do with not being good enough for a theatrical release.

Also, Disney is releasing Tink. So obviously, it thinks the concept can work as a mainstream theatrical release. It'll just get a different spin that will be more appealing to adults.

*Long, long ago, most people saw TV as inferior to movies. One man saw the potential of TV and he was the only Hollywood studio guy to make the jump to the small screen. As a result, he cleaned up. He also used his theme park to promote his shows and vice versa. I think you know who I'm talking about. If that guy were here today, he'd approach DTV the way he did television in the 50s.

 

[lebeau]

Trust me, I have nothing against the PH franchise. It's been well put together and is a great lead in for little girls to get into the Princess lines and other Disney franchises. It does its job effectively and makes money in the process. My problem isn't in the line, it's when a niche line like PH is put into the plans for its own area in MK. Let PH do what it was meant to do, but let the wide demo franchises get the attractions.

That's a more level-headed response than I'm used to when PH comes up around here. Most view it with a seething hatred usually reserved for Stitch and Michael Eisner.

(Picking a nit: The order goes Princesses (3-6), Fairies (6-9) and the Disney Channel (tweens).)

I won't argue that PH was getting too much real estate in the original FLE plans. I don't think anyone ever intended to follow through with that plan anyway.

But I will say that people here seem to greatly overestimate the popularity of properties like AiW among the general population. If Disney opened an amazing Wonderland-themed area, it would create less excitement among tourists than an equally well-done PH.

 

[HM Spectre]

You're filling them in incorrectly. It's not like Disney put together a PH movie and then said, "Nope, this will never cut it at the box office. Let's dump it on video." (Although that happens and it's part of why DTV has such a bad rep.

PH was designed to play to the strengths of the DTV market. They wanted to be able to release a series of relatively inexpensive films that would appeal to a specific demo rather than a mainstream audience. That made DTV a perfect fit. It has nothing to do with not being good enough for a theatrical release.

I agree, they never intended these for a theatrical release. However, niche movies are made all the time and still do well in theaters, so there has to be something about the subject matter that when they're looking at how to create and release it, they say it's a best fit for direct to video... namely that no one aside from the little girls they market to and their parents would watch it.

Again, I'm not arguing quality here, I think with PH it's much more of an appeal angle than anything. They know they can't get any appeal for these movies outside of their target demo so that's why they package it as a direct to video release. At the same time, that's the entire reason for my argument against PH as an attraction. If you know something has such a narrow appeal that you don't think you can profit on it in movie theaters, why on earth would you put it into a universal-appeal park?

 

[HM Spectre]

That's a more level-headed response than I'm used to when PH comes up around here. Most view it with a seething hatred usually reserved for Stitch and Michael Eisner.

Haha so long as it's serving it's purpose, which is to bring little girls along as Disney kids, then I'm all for it. My personal feelings about whether it's absolute garbage are irrelevant (although they're pretty clear :animwink because it's not being made for me and little girls really like it. It's effectively hooking them into the Disney brand so that they can enjoy and support what most consider the GOOD stuff later on and that's what is important to remember about it IMO.

I just don't want to see it used as anything more than a hook and that's why I'm so opposed to it having have its own an area in Magic Kingdom. MK needs to be reserved for the best of the best with the broadest appeal and PH just doesn't meet that bar as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually stunned it got past the creative phase to be honest.

 

[lebeau]

I agree, they never intended these for a theatrical release. However, niche movies are made all the time and still do well in theaters, so there has to be something about the subject matter that when they're looking at how to create and release it, they say it's a best fit for direct to video... namely that no one aside from the little girls they market to and their parents would watch it.

I may be quibbling with you here. It's not the subject matter that has limited appeal. As evidenced by Peter Pan and the upcoming Tink movie (or any of the other films, plays and books the character has appeared in) Tink has mass appeal.

Disney made the decision to do a direct-to-video release first and then designed a product that suited this decision. That meant a niche product.

At the end of the day, I can agree with you that PH in the parks is not going to appeal to a lot of guests. But I'm not sure how important that is. It would appeal to a massive amount of guests. The ones it doesn't appeal to would just to something else.

On the other hand, a property like AiW might be mildly interesting to a larger percentage of the population. But it wouldn't attract a frenzied mass audience like PH would.

For example, Alice, the Mad Hatter and the White Rabbit can easily walk to and from their M&G spot at the exit of the Mad Tea Party. Meanwhile, Tink has hour long lines at her M&G all day long. If she were to walk to and from her M&G publically, she would be mobbed like the Jonas Brothers at the Kid's Choice Awards.

 

[lebeau]

Haha so long as it's serving it's purpose, which is to bring little girls along as Disney kids, then I'm all for it. My personal feelings about whether it's absolute garbage are irrelevant (although they're pretty clear :animwink because it's not being made for me and little girls really like it. It's effectively hooking them into the Disney brand so that they can enjoy and support what most consider the GOOD stuff later on and that's what is important to remember about it IMO.

I just don't want to see it used as anything more than a hook and that's why I'm so opposed to it having have its own an area in Magic Kingdom. MK needs to be reserved for the best of the best with the broadest appeal and PH just doesn't meet that bar as far as I'm concerned. I'm actually stunned it got past the creative phase to be honest.

It would be a massive hook to get these kids interested in WDW.

 

[HM Spectre]

It would be a massive hook to get these kids interested in WDW.

Yes but the need for hooks like PH disappears when you get those kids to WDW because the MK itself is going to hook them unbelievably quickly regardless of whether there's a PH attraction there or not. I can't imagine a kid going to WDW and being miserable because they're missing out on a PH area

 

[TinkerBell#1]

Guess what I voted for?

Christmas is my favorit time of the year and I love MVMCP. But as for Wonderland over Pixie Hollow....NO. Tinker Bell is one of the main char to Disney. Who do you see at start over every Disney show/movie.

Now, I would vote Neverland over Pixie Hollow. Neverland would be a great place for boys and girls. You have Good and Evil char's. To me Diseny is losing audiance and money by not promoting Peter Pan, Lost Boys, and CPT Hook. Neverland would give geat experiance for both genders and all ages.

Now back to Wonderland, it needs to be its on section and honestly has nothing to do with FL. Again, Wonderland needs to be its own area. Might be a great addon for Epcot: wonderLAND. Just my 2cents.

 

[lebeau]

Yes but the need for hooks like PH disappears when you get those kids to WDW because the MK itself is going to hook them unbelievably quickly regardless of whether there's a PH attraction there or not. I can't imagine a kid going to WDW and being miserable because they're missing out on a PH area

1. How many kids do you know? I can easily imagine just that.

2. They won't get hooked on WDW if they don't go. PH would bring a lot of little kids (and their families).

 

[HM Spectre]

1. How many kids do you know? I can easily imagine just that.

2. They won't get hooked on WDW if they don't go. PH would bring a lot of little kids (and their families).

1. Enough to know that unless PH is the only Disney IP you've showed to them, they'll love MK to death.

2. I would be astonished to learn that the "I'm only bringing my kid to WDW if they have a Pixie Hollow area" demographic is more than the tiniest minority.

 

[Krack]

2. I would be astonished to learn that the "I'm only bringing my kid to WDW if they have a Pixie Hollow area" demographic is more than the tiniest minority.

I'd be astonished if it amounted to a single person.

 

[lebeau]

1. Enough to know that unless PH is the only Disney IP you've showed to them, they'll love MK to death.

2. I would be astonished to learn that the "I'm only bringing my kid to WDW if they have a Pixie Hollow area" demographic is more than the tiniest minority.

1. Kids are funny. They get their hearts set on one thing and it becomes the most important thing in the world to them. If a kid decided they HAD to meet Tinkerbell, I could easily see them being crushed if it didn't happen. I've seen massive "this kid must be dying!" fits over far, far less.

2. Would it be the only factor? No. But it would be one that tips the scales for a lot of families. We've traveled to theme parks just because they have a character our kids would like to meet.

 

[lebeau]

I'd be astonished if it amounted to a single person.

You must live a life of constant astonishment.