The Spirited Seventh Heaven ...

asianway

Well-Known Member
Well, they had Kong once before and it was a terrific attraction, then they got rid of it, now they are bringing it back and I will bet dollars to donuts that it will not be as good as the original. They replaced Kong with The Mummy which I could not ride because I wasn't one of the beautiful people that could fit in the vehicle. They did the same thing with HP. They cut out a large (excuse the pun) part of the population from ever experiencing it. I am not impressed.

All appearances seem to point to Disney coming alive as well. The obvious redoing of DHS, the current construction walls everywhere do not indicate that Disney has fallen over dead by any means. Every theme park constructed since 1955 has been riding the coattails of Disneyland. Nothing new there. Magic Kingdom being a close copy, at least in atmosphere, is the main draw and probably always will be.
I like the idea of a Kong ride better than Kongfrontation. Dial it up on YouTube, it wasn't the greatest
 

BrerJon

Well-Known Member
Oh? May be the case now, but it wasn't several years ago. Somehow I ended up with several Future World west costumes including a black Epcot pea coat.

Not costumes in general, just the winter coats, because they don't have enough for every CM to have one on loan. I may be mistaken though, Disney costuming policy is always changing.
 

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
Not costumes in general, just the winter coats, because they don't have enough for every CM to have one on loan. I may be mistaken though, Disney costuming policy is always changing.

They claimed that your paycheck would be docked if you didn't return costumes, but I don't think they did if you weren't terminated.
 

Cosmic Commando

Well-Known Member
Would it be too much to ask for a MK restaurant that had great theming and served a tempting selection of high-quality food and alcohol at a reasonable price?
Oh, goodness; I almost made it entirely through that without cracking up. :hilarious:
It would be easier to invent a time machine to go back to 1994, and bring one of these:
cc69_starfleet_hip_flask.jpg
 

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
So with all the work expected to go on at DHS, what is to happen to the Honey I shrunk the Kids play area? That area desperately needs to either go or be rethemed to A Bug's Life.
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
I know many people did not like the movie, but IMHO it was a good movie.

The movie did not completely bomb since it made 284 million dollars, but certainly was not a blockbuster. So now will another studio step up to the plate and try to pick up where Disney left off?
I try to look at "John Carter" as a key turning point in the relationship between Bob Iger and Pixar/John Lasseter. "John Carter (of Mars)" was originally going to be Pixar's first live action film soon to be followed up by Brad Bird's forgotten 1906, about the San Francisco earthquake of that year. Lasseter and others at Pixar wanted to push the boundaries of what they could do. They wanted WDAS to make lots of hand drawn films. They wanted higher quality attractions and lands based on Pixar characters in the parks. The effort to make "John Carter" fail was meant to reign in Lasseter and anyone at Pixar who wanted take risks and make something great. Iger and his flying monkeys only see them as the "Cartoon people". I guess you can figure out who won.
 
Last edited:

flynnibus

Premium Member

I still don't trust hollywood accounting even in dealing with the UK government. Do they report on money spent on the film spent outside of the UK? A barometer, but I'd still call the numbers foggy. And that doesn't seem to account for marketing/distribution as well which would be insulated from production.

In summary, all of it sickening to me :(
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I finally saw Maleficent on a recent flight... what a bore. I can't believe people gave it as much praise as they did.

I totally didn't get the rape/induendo/whatever about Steffan people were talking about. I know that they've gone on record that was the part of the thinking.. the 'violation' or 'abuse' but...mehhhh.

What a waste of a film. The kind that you watch and wonder 'why'. Meanwhile I watched Inglorious Bastards.. and while I didn't love the film per say, it felt so much more of a return for my time. I watched American Hustle on the same flight, and that was 100x better. Kept you interested, had interesting characters, and had a great twist and climax. It had its story flaws, but it felt like a movie I would have enjoyed in the theater to pay for. Maleficent?? The kind of film that would keep me from seeing the next film...
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
I still don't trust hollywood accounting even in dealing with the UK government. Do they report on money spent on the film spent outside of the UK? A barometer, but I'd still call the numbers foggy. And that doesn't seem to account for marketing/distribution as well which would be insulated from production.

In summary, all of it sickening to me :(
Here's what the British Film Comission considers "monies eligible for tax rebates".
UK qualifying production expenditure is defined as expenditure incurred on filming activities (pre-production, principal photography and post production) which take place within the UK, irrespective of the nationality of the persons carrying out the activity. (http://www.britishfilmcommission.org.uk/film-production/uk-film-tax-relief/#sthash.NAL6LaVe.dpuf)

I'm going to do some digging into a British Film Comission document that I came across from my Star Wars in Abu Dhabi post which outlines the formal process for UK based productions seeking tax rebates. I'll let you know what I find. I'm thinking they want to see the total expenditure for the film and the contribution of the production budget spent in the UK.
 
Last edited:

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
I finally saw Maleficent on a recent flight... what a bore. I can't believe people gave it as much praise as they did.

I totally didn't get the rape/induendo/whatever about Steffan people were talking about. I know that they've gone on record that was the part of the thinking.. the 'violation' or 'abuse' but...mehhhh.

What a waste of a film. The kind that you watch and wonder 'why'. Meanwhile I watched Inglorious Bastards.. and while I didn't love the film per say, it felt so much more of a return for my time. I watched American Hustle on the same flight, and that was 100x better. Kept you interested, had interesting characters, and had a great twist and climax. It had its story flaws, but it felt like a movie I would have enjoyed in the theater to pay for. Maleficent?? The kind of film that would keep me from seeing the next film...
At Disney, story is "bull****".
http://variety.com/2011/digital/news/disney-exec-studios-should-lean-on-tentpoles-1118041020/
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
That doesn't include the roughly $100M spent on John Carter marketing.

John Carter's world-wide box office reportedly was $284M.

Disney ended up writing off about $200M.

Conversely, phase 1 of WWOHP, Rip Ride Rockit, and the Simpsons Ride cost $385M. Quoting from Universal's 10K:

"As of December 31, 2010, our total capital investment in The Wizarding World of Harry Potter™ (which opened in the spring of 2010), Hollywood Rip Ride RockitSM (which opened in the summer of 2009), The Simpsons Ride™ (which opened in the spring of 2008), and certain system enhancements primarily including the reengineering of our website and online ticket store was approximately $385.0 million."​

Uni's park revenue was up $400M in 2010 (recall that WWOHP opened mid-year) and another $389M in 2011.

By all accounts, WWOHP was a huge financial success.

What else were financial successes?

DLR's Cars Land and WDW's New Fantasyland.

Disney's theme park revenue was up $562M in 2012 and another $723M in 2013.

As Disney has proven time and again, a smart theme park addition reaps financial rewards for decades. Heck, I still go to DHS if only to ride Tower of Terror, opened in 1994. :)

Last year, Disney's Parks & Resorts generated over $14B in revenue while Studio Entertainment generated only $6B. Yet, disproportionately, Disney CEO Bob Iger focuses on Studio Entertainment.

In part, it's because films are sexy. Would you rather hang out with Johnny Depp at the latest $10,000/plate fundraiser or with the Smith family at a crowded theme park?

However, it's also because these expensive "tent pole" films are indicative of the "quick buck" mentality that dominates Wall Street thinking. Theme park improvements take time to realize their full returns on investment.

As a Wall Street darling, it's not surprising that Iger dumps billions in films while largely ignoring his financially successful yet aging domestic theme parks. :(
 

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
That doesn't include the roughly $100M spent on John Carter marketing.

John Carter's world-wide box office reportedly was $284M.

Disney ended up writing off about $200M.

Conversely, phase 1 of WWOHP, Rip Ride Rockit, and the Simpsons Ride cost $385M. Quoting from Universal's 10K:

"As of December 31, 2010, our total capital investment in The Wizarding World of Harry Potter™ (which opened in the spring of 2010), Hollywood Rip Ride RockitSM (which opened in the summer of 2009), The Simpsons Ride™ (which opened in the spring of 2008), and certain system enhancements primarily including the reengineering of our website and online ticket store was approximately $385.0 million."​

Uni's park revenue was up $400M in 2010 (recall that WWOHP opened mid-year) and another $389M in 2011.

By all accounts, WWOHP was a huge financial success.

What else were financial successes?

DLR's Cars Land and WDW's New Fantasyland.

Disney's theme park revenue was up $562M in 2012 and another $723M in 2013.

As Disney has proven time and again, a smart theme park addition reaps financial rewards for decades. Heck, I still go to DHS if only to ride Tower of Terror, opened in 1994. :)

Last year, Disney's Parks & Resorts generated over $14B in revenue while Studio Entertainment generated only $6B. Yet, disproportionately, Disney CEO Bob Iger focuses on Studio Entertainment.

In part, it's because films are sexy. Would you rather hang out with Johnny Depp at the latest $10,000/plate fundraiser or with the Smith family at a crowded theme park?

However, it's also because these expensive "tent pole" films are indicative of the "quick buck" mentality that dominates Wall Street thinking. Theme park improvements take time to realize their full returns on investment.

As a Wall Street darling, it's not surprising that Iger dumps billions in films while largely ignoring his financially successful yet aging domestic theme parks. :(
The films are also what run the theme parks these days, unfortunately. Overseas WDI is allowed to be original with their content, but stateside, they have to pander to the lowest common denominator and throw Frozen in Norway at Epcot because it'll be a GUARANTEED success. Problem is, even if you're going to do a Frozen ride rather than something original like Mystic Manor, do it right, don't shove it in a 25 year old boat ride and call it a day.
 

Cosmic Commando

Well-Known Member

I know many people did not like the movie, but IMHO it was a good movie.

The movie did not completely bomb since it made 284 million dollars, but certainly was not a blockbuster. So now will another studio step up to the plate and try to pick up where Disney left off?
Maybe the next studio will try to make movies based off of the books. Stanton wanted to "trilogize" it, and ruined the story. Not to mention the casting. It's funny... I listened to audio books of the originals, because I knew Disney was making the movie. The books then turned me against the movie, because I didn't like what they changed! They were fairly straightforward books, and trying to add in these unnecessary overarching villains messed it all up IMO. The story of the first book was: "Guy goes to Mars, kicks butt". The white Martians shouldn't have been anywhere near the first movie.
I still don't trust hollywood accounting even in dealing with the UK government. Do they report on money spent on the film spent outside of the UK? A barometer, but I'd still call the numbers foggy. And that doesn't seem to account for marketing/distribution as well which would be insulated from production.

In summary, all of it sickening to me :(
http://www.slashfilm.com/lucasfilm-tells-darth-vader-that-return-of-the-jedi-hasnt-made-a-profit/

Yeah, I barely trust the weekend box office numbers anymore after hearing about the above story. Anything accounting-related that comes out of Hollywood is extremely suspect.
 

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

Top Bottom