truecoat
Well-Known Member
Probably when they stop calling it Walt Disney World.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Walt Disney Company 100 at [Cabochon] Disneyland
- Thread starter Californian Elitist
- Start date
Probably when they stop calling it Walt Disney World.
waltography
Well-Known Member
I wonder why they included “California” under “Disneyland Resort.”
VJ
Well-Known Member
it's probably targeted at people outside california - the people who use disneyland and disney world interchangeably
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
I get why they're making DLR the center of this celebration, but what I don't get is why WDW just isn't part of this.
You would think that they might want to extend it to one of the company's most prominent assets.
I mean, yeah, the 50th, but it's almost over and it sucks anyway, so...they should do something. They can't even put some vaguely tasteful bling on the castle? That's lazy.
Clearly they're putting California on there because otherwise people will assume that WDW is part of this, though I can still see lots of people assume that the Disney 100 logo is the WDW logo.
Incidentally, I think it's a nice, tasteful ad. We could use more of those from the ol' Mouse House.
You would think that they might want to extend it to one of the company's most prominent assets.
I mean, yeah, the 50th, but it's almost over and it sucks anyway, so...they should do something. They can't even put some vaguely tasteful bling on the castle? That's lazy.
Clearly they're putting California on there because otherwise people will assume that WDW is part of this, though I can still see lots of people assume that the Disney 100 logo is the WDW logo.
Incidentally, I think it's a nice, tasteful ad. We could use more of those from the ol' Mouse House.
I am honestly and truly convinced that they don’t care about including WDW in terms of things like this. Like, the thought doesn’t even cross their mind, and if it does, it’s only for a brief second.
VJ
Well-Known Member
that's what happens when your brand is diluted far enough that "Walt Disney World" becomes "Disney"
WDW is not getting its own unique celebration, with the exception of the new show at Epcot. That’s the difference.
The El Cap is running a four movie marathon on New Year’s to help kick off the anniversary. They’re showing Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, and Frozen. I actually would have considered this, but they lost me at Frozen.
elcapitantheatre.com
Home
Experience new and classic Disney films and special events at the El Capitan Theatre, a beautifully restored 1920s movie palace on Hollywood Blvd.
elcapitantheatre.com
brb1006
Well-Known Member
Fantastia, Bambi, or Pinocchio would had been a better fit than Frozen.The El Cap is running a four movie marathon on New Year’s to help kick off the anniversary. They’re showing Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, and Frozen. I actually would have considered this, but they lost me at Frozen.
Home
Experience new and classic Disney films and special events at the El Capitan Theatre, a beautifully restored 1920s movie palace on Hollywood Blvd.
Exactly. Or The Little Mermaid, given the three of the four films are Renaissance-era.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
That's concerning to me.The El Cap is running a four movie marathon on New Year’s to help kick off the anniversary. They’re showing Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, and Frozen. I actually would have considered this, but they lost me at Frozen.
Home
Experience new and classic Disney films and special events at the El Capitan Theatre, a beautifully restored 1920s movie palace on Hollywood Blvd.
Not that those are bad films by any stretch, but they've been overly focused on the post-Little Mermaid films for some time, and given that this is ostensibly to honor the company's long history, the fact that they won't show even ONE film actually made by Walt Disney is alarming.
Like...
Snow White
Pinocchio
Bambi
Cinderella
Sleeping Beauty
101 Dalmatians
Mary Poppins
and others.
Even if we're skirting films that have problematic moments there are plenty of options. It's not like the world has forgotten these films.
They own most of the pre-1960s films that have been widely seen by modern audiences and they just junk them if they can't tie them into a modern franchise. It's really sad.
Yep, I thought the same thing! Where are the older classics? Not even Snow White, the company’s first animated film? No Fantasia, Cinderella, Mary Poppins, etc.? Maybe they’ve planned more screenings for the future and are grouping the films?
brb1006
Well-Known Member
I strongly agree, say what you can about Eisner. But the only thing I really miss from the Eisner era was that Disney used to give plenty of love to Disney's Animated Films of the 60s and 70s. I remember during that era, the company had started making the 101 Dalmatians series into a legit franchise (similar to Winnie the Pooh). I grew up during a period when 101 Dalmatians was suddenly getting a resurge in popularity after the success of the 1996 live-action film. Disney made tons of merchandise, an animated series, a sequel to the 1996 movie, and an animated sequel to the original film.
Disney attempted to give the same treatment with The Aristocats by attempting to turn that into it's own franchise. Such as plans for an animated series in 2003 and a canned sequel.
Besides those two examples, I miss when the U.S. Disney Parks used to give lesser-known and obscure Disney Characters plenty of attention and used to be common meetable characters. I remember when The Three Little Pigs alongside The Big Bad Wolf and the Robin Hood characters used to be found almost daily at both parks compared to nowadays.
I believe this period of Disney started phasing out once Iger acquired Marvel and Star Wars with current Disney being more focused on Marvel and Star Wars compared to Disney Films (both animated and live-action) of the past. The success of Frozen only made Disney more interested in their modern works compared to their previous films. At least Tokyo Disney Resort and Paris has done a better job at doing both.
Don't get me started with the long wait on their 1948 film "So Dear To My Heart" coming to Disney+ in the future.
brb1006
Well-Known Member
I really hope that's the case, while I understand the importance of The Renaissance Era. I prefer when Disney focuses more on their older films and IPs in any modern media. It's a major reason I dearly admirer House of Mouse since they reference and even features a lot of Disney's obscure characters from the past. Heck, I would totally be down a modern revival on the series for Disney+ someday.
denyuntilcaught
Well-Known Member
But we have to think about what moves the needle, versus nostalgia for nostalgia's sake.
Fine line, I think.
PiratesMansion
Well-Known Member
And I get that, but we literally wouldn't be here having this conversation if it wasn't for Snow White or Cinderella. The Disney company as we know it is around because those particular films were successes. If those films had bombed, no WDC as we know it, and certainly no Disney theme parks.
Mary Poppins was so successful that it made a manufacturing division of WED possible, which in turn was named after it (MAPO). If there was no MAPO, I imagine the parks today would look very different.
I'm not saying everything has to be focused on the classics, but given that 100 years is a long time, they should make an effort to actually reflect that entire heritage in some fashion. There should be some semblance of balance. If they're going to show four films to highlight the company's 100th anniversary, why not Snow White, Mary Poppins, Lion King, and Encanto? It would at least showcase different eras of the company instead of just regurgitating the same films that we've been highlighting for my entire lifetime, whether there was an important anniversary happening or not.
Does it really make sense to highlight 100 years of the Walt Disney Company while studiously ignoring every single film he worked on? I'm just saying.