The Rock to Star in 20K Under the Sea

SirGoofy

Member
Paying that much for any property is a huge gamble and I very clearly remember the heat Iger took for it at the time by many.

Of course, looking back it's easy to say it was a safe bet, but that definitely was not the case at the time for many.

Personally, acquiring the highest quality movie producing company there is today doesn't fall under the realm of a gamble, but that's just me.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Personally, acquiring the highest quality movie producing company there is today doesn't fall under the realm of a gamble, but that's just me.

Like I said, there were many people who critisized the decision at the time. Many on these boards fall into that category. Rememer also, that Ratatouille and Wall-E came out after the purchase. Now I thought it was a good decision after examining it but then I am also of the opinion Iger knows what he is doing.
 

SirGoofy

Member
Like I said, there were many people who critisized the decision at the time. Many on these boards fall into that category. Rememer also, that Ratatouille and Wall-E came out after the purchase. Now I thought it was a good decision after examining it but then I am also of the opinion Iger knows what he is doing.

Personally I hate Ratatouille, but that's beside the fact. Every Pixar release besides Cars was a critical and financial success. They knew what they were getting with Pixar.

As for Iger. He's a very smart business man, but he is lost IMO when it comes to the theme parks. I think he needs to give Lasseter some more power than he already has in that area.
 

The Conundrum

New Member
If wdwinsider gets banned three times, I might believe you.:animwink:

Well im fairly confident hes been banned at least once before.

If you were as "in the know" as you let on you would know that Disney never owned the Narnia franchise.:hammer:

Where exactly did I say I was "in the know" whatever that means anyway. Disney didn't "own" the narnia franchise but Eisner acquired the distribution rights soley because he wanted a "harry potter killer" and both he and Iger set out to make it a big franchise for them. They even had the charecters walking around the parks for a few years. My original statement still stands.

What Iger is talking about has never been tried so it can hardly be said it wouldn't work.:brick:

No guts, no glory!:D

And Iger is where he is and you are where you are. Enough said!:lol:

Igers got something like 50 years on me. You know many ppl fresh out of college that are picked to run a 50 year old international media conglomorate? Your attempt to belittle me is so absurd.
 

EPCOT Explorer

New Member
Wow. Really?? This post is an awful stretch, even for you, jt. :lol:

When has Disney (or anyone else for that matter) timed an attraction open with the opening of a new film franchise??? Heck, we're JUST NOW getting TLM at DCA, with a WDW version maybe tagging along. Lasseter has said in the past that he thought attractions should time with movie opens, I'll give you that... But he doesn't write the checks to fund these projects.

Do you really believe the powers that be would okay investment of hundreds of millions of dollars for a new land (consisting of multiple attractions) based on a film property they have no history with in its current form? Especially these days, when nearly everything added to the parks is based around a tie-in? .
Devils Advocate Time!:D

Beauty and the Beast.:D Opened in DHS and in the Theaters at the same time!:D
 

dizpins14

Member
Devil's Advocate part II.

Sleeping Beauty came out 4 years after Disneyland opened...

Weren't there also plans to open a Reign of Fire roller coaster in Beastly Kingdom before that movie came out.

To build a land loosely based around a classic novel and movie would not be a huge gamble, even if the reboot fails.
 

SirGoofy

Member
Devil's Advocate part II.

Sleeping Beauty came out 4 years after Disneyland opened...

We're talking about more recent developements.

Weren't there also plans to open a Reign of Fire roller coaster in Beastly Kingdom before that movie came out.

There was a dragon coaster planned, but it wasn't based on Reign of Fire. It was about a group of bats that planned on stealing treasure from an evil dragon.
 

sittle

Member
.... I've heard Dwayne The Rock Johnson cited as a 'credible actor' one two many times in this post... :hurl:

Seriously, I know Disney has leaned on some fairly talented (and accredited ) actors before Dean Jones, Robin Williams, Johnny Depp, Angela Lansbury, Eddie Murphy etc... etc... Is there no one in Hollywood willing to step up to some of these roles...??

Come to think of it, the movies that The Rock has 'starred' in (he happened to have the most screen time) have been real clinkers... So maybe The Rock is Disney's punching bag...

I would love to see Disney take Mulligans for The Haunted Mansion movie and The Tower of Terror movies.... While I'm at it, it would be nice for them to take a mulligan in advance of this new 20K Under the Sea movie...

.... When their done showing this movie, they'd better bring some fans in to blow that egg salad smell out of the theatre!! :ROFLOL:
 

TURKEY

New Member
Come to think of it, the movies that The Rock has 'starred' in (he happened to have the most screen time) have been real clinkers... So maybe The Rock is Disney's punching bag...


For Disney, I don't really agree. The Game Plan was cute for what it was as was Witch Mountain. Both were pretty successful for the amount of money and expectations of them.

What other Disney movies has he been in?
 

SirGoofy

Member
The Rock has been praised in almost all his roles even if the movies he's been in haven't been. He's got the acting chops, just poor script choosing abilities.
 

Buried20KLeague

Well-Known Member
The have added two theme parks at WDW in the last 20 years (as a publicly traded company) so I can't really see how adding a "land" is revolutionary. Like I said, even if the movie fails the addition to AK would succeed, it would just have a longer "payback" period. That is not really a gamble. What would be new is rolling out 20K stuff across all divisions with the release of the movie with the idea of a trilogy already planned on paper.

Epcot was added because it was the reason Walt wanted Florida. And even then, the company didn't TAKE THE RISK to build E.P.C.O.T. the way Walt wanted it. They deemed it not feasable. Too risky. So they settled on another gate. Not at all what was intended.

MGM was built (hastily and poorly) by Eisner in response to Universal opening up down the street. That wasn't a risk. That was a terrified response to competition. That was fear that NOT building it would risk losing revenue! That's the OPPOSITE of risk! :lol:

AK, some see as a response to Sea World and Busch Gardens in Tampa. It's Disney giving a competing product to lessen the number of people that feel they need to leave property to visit those places for that kind of experience. I would also argue that it's always been the intention of TWDC to build multiple parks at the Florida location. Hence the MASSIVE land acquisition.

I still don't see where the massive Behemoth that is TWDC has taken much risk in the Parks & Resorts division to back up your claims.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Epcot was added because it was the reason Walt wanted Florida. And even then, the company didn't TAKE THE RISK to build E.P.C.O.T. the way Walt wanted it. They deemed it not feasable. Too risky. So they settled on another gate. Not at all what was intended.

MGM was built (hastily and poorly) by Eisner in response to Universal opening up down the street. That wasn't a risk. That was a terrified response to competition. That was fear that NOT building it would risk losing revenue! That's the OPPOSITE of risk! :lol:

AK, some see as a response to Sea World and Busch Gardens in Tampa. It's Disney giving a competing product to lessen the number of people that feel they need to leave property to visit those places for that kind of experience. I would also argue that it's always been the intention of TWDC to build multiple parks at the Florida location. Hence the MASSIVE land acquisition.

I still don't see where the massive Behemoth that is TWDC has taken much risk in the Parks & Resorts division to back up your claims.

Ummm, that is my whole point. Iger is talking about changing that mindset. The massive land aquisition was done by Walt Disney so he could build his E.P.C.O.T. concept. He was forward looking and a visionary. And willing to take chances. I believe Iger wants to bring that back, albeit on a smaller scale, with his "franchises" concept. It's no more complicated than that. So I expect Mysterious Island is not just a rumor and "Phase 1" (20,000 Leaques Under the Sea clone from TDS) could open at AK to support the release of the tentpole movie. I would guess 20K would be released in 2011 which is also the 40th of WDW. And about a year after potterville opens.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
if you believe the rumors :rolleyes:

Yep, they have closed everything in CMM (except LK) for no reason whatsever :rolleyes:. And they have no plans for the future of that land or the expansion pad :rolleyes:. And they will probably never add another attraction to Animal Kingdom :rolleyes:. Ever :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.



:ROFLOL:
 

SirGoofy

Member
Yep, they have closed everything in CMM (except LK) for no reason whatsever :rolleyes:. And they have no plans for the future of that land or the expansion pad :rolleyes:. And they will probably never add another attraction to Animal Kingdom :rolleyes:. Ever :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:.



:ROFLOL:

While I agree that new things will be coming to AK, your timing is way off, jt. They would have to break ground NOW if they wanted to be open for the 40th. And FotLK isn't planned to be closed anytime soon as far as I know.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom