Why film in DLR and WDW? Couldn't they have just done the Vacation DVD and Disney Parks commercials approach?
Because it takes place in FL, and our Castle is much more impressive visually - but our Fantasyland has been a constructon zone since the turn of the decade, Snow White doesn't exist any more, and even when it did - the exterior of DL's Snow White was much nicer.
It is a little jarring at first as someone who knows both parks very well, but the average person will never notice. And they actually do it quite seamlessly.
It certainly wasn't the best film ever made, but it really was entertaining. A lot of that comes from the "OMG I can't believe they were able to pull that off", sure. The ride footage is actually quite good.
Reading through the thread has been just as entertaining, LOL. So much speculation and misinformation. The "girls" were actually in their 20's - I couldn't figure out at first what in the world people were talking about with "sexual abuse victims" until I realized they thought these were not adults.
There are a ton of inside jokes that frankly probably most people who see it wouldn't understand (I about died when the Queen was talking about her "hidden mickey" ROFL), but it's quite clever in certain ways and when I read certain Disney fans reaction to it's quality (particularly ones who are involved in media creation) I tend to think it's more sour grapes than anything because they didn't come up with the idea to do this themselves.
As to why Disney isn't responding - that's a total given. They would be stupid to.
1) The movie is made. It's done. By the time they found out about it, it was too late to keep the cat in the bag. It would have just been leaked and out there anyway - and due to the Streisand effect, it would have just been even more popular. (FYI, it hit CNN today so it's building, if slowly.)
2) A lot has been written about the legalities of it, but it's no where near as cut and dry as many people seem to think. There is no copyrighted music, and it clearly states up front that neither Disney nor Siemens had anything to do with it. It's similar legal territory to "mash ups" on YouTube, which courts have ruled in favor of - if you take someone else's "art" and cut it up and make your own art out of it, it's considered fair use (and, really, legally, that's precisely what was done here - cut ups of different shots mostly of things that are not actually copyrighted - and the fact that the footage is combined from different parks helps that as well). This is
classic fair-use. Fair-use is often misunderstood, but this is clearly "new art, not meant to replicate the art that it contains" - no one is going to think this is going to replicate the experience of going to the Disney parks.
3) The whole "what does Disney own for imagery" in the parks has been a sketchy legal issue for years. Considering fair use, Disney REALLY does not want to bring this anywhere near a courtroom - because if it is decided not in their favor, they just opened up a HUGE can of worms. As of now, it's untested legal territory - it would be a gamble if they tried to do anything. If they "win" - they get not much, since the film likely will barely make back it's production costs, and if they lose - they just had precedent set for them not really having authority of what happens to media and footage taken in the parks. They do not want a court decision that says that. They could possibly go the Trademark route (as some imagery could be argued to fall under that), but all the park/ride footage online (some of which is sold) has been going on for years and that could be seen as tacit permission and them not enforcing their trademarks, which can lead to losing them - a court ruling on that could be devastating far beyond this little film (and into such sacred territory as merchandise rights).
The most "objectionable" thing I can see Disney not liking is the faked Meet'N Greet with the Princesses, which again, is an issue Disney does NOT want to be talked about or ruled on in a courtroom. Even if in their eventual favor, it still could set precedent for what they do and do not own. If you look at the costumes, they are not replicas - particularly the mermaid, as Ariel doesn't walk/stand in the parks with her fins. Disney did not create those Princesses - they own a specific version of them (kind of like anyone can go and make a Wizard of Oz movie with Dorothy, but they can't have ruby slippers in them - an invention of the 1939 copyrighted film). While obviously the film is designed to make you think they are in a park, they aren't - and lawsuits over stuff like this is VERY specific and will look at exactly what the content in that scene is, what is in the frame - not how it relates to the overall film.
4) As to the people in the parks that appear in footage, again, shaky legal ground. You give up your rights to publicity just entering a publicly open space, in this case you give it up to Disney - they can take your picture and do whatever they want with it. That said, this isn't Disney that has done it - and the argument could be made that you were in public, even on private property. In any case, Disney would have to support any lawsuit made by an individual, which they won't do because of #3. Think of people who take pics of other people they don't know at WDW and post them on places like this - some very embarrassing. Disney does not want to be involved with precedent set on that - there have been threads here over the years with people shown with wedgies, etc. - imagine if that person could sue WDWMagic, the photographer, etc.
I think Disney was just hoping it would go away, but it's gaining steam. But not nearly as much steam if they were out there trying to stop it. And at this point, they would just look terrible if they knew about it all this time, did nothing to prevent release (you can get it on Amazon as we speak), and just now caused a stink about it.
Not to mention, Disney looks pretty idiotic here to begin with. You would have to see the film to really understand, but the most astounding thing about this at all is that they didn't get caught. Only a few of the in-park scenes were done on green screen (and they cleverly have a Disney-style trash can in the shots with the actors to make it blend). Most of the exterior park stuff really was in the park. And Disney security looks absolutely, completely incompetent here.
They did several takes of each scene, each shot - while they are busy playing security theater at the bag check, these people were filming a motion picture right under their noses. Even without a bulky camera, it's just unfathomable to me how someone didn't think something was going on. We like to think that they are watching everything and protecting us from this, that, and the other - but some of this stuff is shot and framed so well (from multiple angles) that it's almost impossible to believe it wasn't like a Sitcom filming from the 90's where everyone is in on it.
So yeah, Disney is right to not touch this with a ten-foot pole. There is so much they could lose by doing so, even if overall they "won" - and "winning" here isn't really winning, anyway. The risks are far greater than any statement or reward they could make going after these guys.
Finally, I do have to say Bravo to the filmmaker - really, truly. It's certainly not the best film ever, it has very art house, disassociated feel to it - but the chutzpah and the technical work are impressive for a film made this way. The sound is very, very good - which is shocking, considering how it was done. For a guerrilla film made right under Disney's supposedly "all knowing" nose, on what is essentially a still camera, is an amazing feat. I have no doubt someone is going to give this guy some money to make a "real" movie over this. If this was the 90's when indie cinema was in it's heyday, he'd already be signed to a 5M dollar deal and be working with Brad Pitt. But even in today's climate, someone is going to invest in him and while he may never be a big shot director, he at least has got his foot in the door.
