The Spirited 11th Hour ...

evilzorac

Active Member
I dont think that is true at all. Just because Tomorrowland has Space Mtn does not mean the entire land is directed to older groups. All of the other rides are quite mild. What is in Adventureland that is directed to older groups? The make believe Pirate ride or Jungle boat? The spinner? The big Tree House? Those lands were created with families in mind, not just one subset or age group.

These are all lands that were created back when the Imagineers did not live in fear of daring to speak out. There was a balance and harmony of budget and imagination. It shines through in their design and the detail that has truly stood the test of time. Comparing NFL to any other land in MK its clear to see the difference. The size, the scope, the flow and the ever so touted "immersiveness" are just plain better, (IMO). Take that same group of Imagineers and executives from back in the day and give them $500 million and 5 years to build a new area and I bet dollars to doughnuts we would actually be BLOWN AWAY, not just served up a concoction of phased opening, buzz word hyped clones and meet and greets with a dash of Goofy Barnstormer on protein powder (not even steroids).
Bravo! FYI I am standing up and clapping, couldn't agree more.
 

Nubs70

Well-Known Member
Be honest, have you ever actually done Enchanted Tales with Belle? I suspect not, because if you had you'd know that it has two of the best animatronics that WDI has put out in years.
I would have but there were not enough kids. After waiting for 45 minutes, I left.
 

NearTheEars

Well-Known Member
image.jpeg


Hey, I found all of the guns!

In other news, the size of this Character Warehouse location (Premium International Drive) has been cut in half with a Panera Bread being constructed on the corner now.
 

wdisney9000

Truindenashendubapreser
Premium Member
Never miss an opportunity, eh?

The next time you run into an Imagineer, or someone higher up in operations, ask them about the e-ticket classification.
What difference does it make how they "classify" it? Seeing is believing and the proof is in the pudding (as of lately). Hey, I can take a dump in a box and mark it "guaranteed", (i got spare time). Then I'll sell it to you at a premium price. But all I really sold you was a "guaranteed" p.o.s.

* (bonus points for anyone who got the movie reference)
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
What difference does it make how they "classify" it? Seeing is believing and the proof is in the pudding (as of lately). Hey, I can take a dump in a box and mark it "guaranteed", (i got spare time). Then I'll sell it to you at a premium price. But all I really sold you was a "guaranteed" p.o.s.

* (bonus points for anyone who got the movie reference)

That is my point. A good attraction is a good attraction and a bad attraction is a bad attraction no matter if one labels it as an e-ticket or a-ticket. That is why my suggestion was to stop going back and forth on the ticket labels.

and....Tommy Boy
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
That's completely backwards.

You gloss over the biggest reason people have a problem with stock based compensation... the stock valuation is about placating to short term metrics and interests... not necessarily long term business or product directions.

The problem with all 'coin-operated' metrics and compensation is it drives the behavior to the metric instead of holistic behavior.

The majority of employees don't have a problem finding motivation to do their job without the need to incentivitize them with sweetheart options.
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
I hate Disney's obsession with live-action remakes, but damn this is actually a good trailer



I'm sure I'm going to open up another can of worms, so here goes...

I find this funny, everyone keeps complaining about these remakes, but on the whole they've been at minimum watchable to quite good and all have consistently performed at the box office.

Jungle Book looks like it will maintain this trend. Which is not something we can say about all their other live action offerings of late. In fact, I'm not really sure what loss people are lamenting. Someone find me any period in time when Disney live action has produced a consistently better slate, because live action has never been a strong suit at any point in time for Disney.

So at what point is this obsession actually not as dire as everyone is making it out to be? Formulaic definitely, but it's a formula that seems to be working.
 

NobodyElse

Well-Known Member
I think you might be forgetting things like the first steel rollercoaster was built at Disneyland, under Walt's direction (Matterhorn)..

Since this has been quoted a few times already, it's probably time to make a distinction. The Matterhorn Bobsleds (built by Arrow Dynamics) was credited as being the first coaster to utilize tubular steel tracks.
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Someone find me any period in time when Disney live action has produced a consistently better slate, because live action has never been a strong suit at any point in time for Disney.

Basically, when Walt was alive. The ratio of good to bad was much better, and there was more variety in what was produced (nature films, period adventures, slapstick comedies, musicals etc). This excludes the many TV productions like The Magnificent Rebel that benefitted from larger budgets and location filming. I'm not saying all were great, but you could get Pollyanna, Swiss Family Robinson and Jungle Cat all in the same year.

Due to the volume of product produced, Live-action films and television were very improtant to the studios livelihood during the 1960s. Remember at that time animated movies were every 3-4 years, and there was only one theme park.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Basically, when Walt was alive. The ratio of good to bad was much better, and there was more variety in what was produced (nature films, period adventures, slapstick comedies, musicals etc). This excludes the many TV productions like The Magnificent Rebel that benefitted from larger budgets and location filming. I'm not saying all were great, but you could get Pollyanna, Swiss Family Robinson and Jungle Cat all in the same year.

Due to the volume of product produced, Live-action films and television were very improtant to the studios livelihood during the 1960s. Remember at that time animated movies were every 3-4 years, and there was only one theme park.

There have been some decent flicks released under Touchstone over the years if you want to count that... :)
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Basically, when Walt was alive. The ratio of good to bad was much better, and there was more variety in what was produced (nature films, period adventures, slapstick comedies, musicals etc). This excludes the many TV productions like The Magnificent Rebel that benefitted from larger budgets and location filming. I'm not saying all were great, but you could get Pollyanna, Swiss Family Robinson and Jungle Cat all in the same year.

Due to the volume of product produced, Live-action films and television were very improtant to the studios livelihood during the 1960s. Remember at that time animated movies were every 3-4 years, and there was only one theme park.

Alright, that's fair! Admittedly I did not look that far back, nor have the knowledge to judge the slate. Although we still get most of those genres today, we generally forget that Disney Nature for example always has a new offering on Earth Day.

So Disney live action (even if you strip away Marvel and Lucasfilm) is now the most consistent slate its been in over a half century. That's thanks to re-makes, it's unfortunately not thanks to original adaptations/original ideas, which keep mostly missing the mark.
 

Mike S

Well-Known Member
I'm sure I'm going to open up another can of worms, so here goes...

I find this funny, everyone keeps complaining about these remakes, but on the whole they've been at minimum watchable to quite good and all have consistently performed at the box office.

Jungle Book looks like it will maintain this trend. Which is not something we can say about all their other live action offerings of late. In fact, I'm not really sure what loss people are lamenting. Someone find me any period in time when Disney live action has produced a consistently better slate, because live action has never been a strong suit at any point in time for Disney.

So at what point is this obsession actually not as dire as everyone is making it out to be? Formulaic definitely, but it's a formula that seems to be working.
I did like Alice in Wonderland. Didn't see Maleficent or Cinderella but I will be seeing Jungle Book and Through the Looking Glass which technically isn't a remake.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom