Y'all should ...

John

John

Well-Known Member
Magenta Panther said:
And here we go again...

There's a difference between acquisition and artistry. For instance, Disney's version of Pinocchio is original enough that if you try to use his likeness without the Mouse's permission, you lose your cheese, even though he's based on the works of Carlo Collodi. But how can that be, when Disney didn't create Pinocchio???? Because THAT Pinocchio is the Disney version, brought to life through art and not merely acquisition. And that makes a hell of a difference. Your attitude is similar to someone who buys a painting, hangs it in his house and then claims to have created it. Given your attitude, can Disney now claim that they created the Muppets, because it bought them?

I think most people who go to a Disney park want to see Disney-created or adapted characters, not stuff that's bought and crammed into the park willy-nilly. The resurrection of DCA from a non-Disney-themed park to a Disney-themed park, and its amazing success, should be a lesson to those who think a Disney park is just about all the neat-o rides. Disney Parks are supposed to have more going for them than that. But if their identity keeps getting diluted by off-property non-Disney offal, then what pray tell will make them any different than Universal or Six Flags?
Click to expand...


The days of "Disney-only" characters and "disney-only" properties are long gone. Given the fact that they have invested a ton of money in these other properties they need to get a return on them. So you say....then dont buy those other properties? Well then Uni or someone else will. So be it you say? The puplic likes what it likes....no matter who owns them. What kind of park would WDW be if they had "Disney-only" characters? It wouldnt be what it is today.
 
Californian Elitist

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
Why are the muppets not Disney? They were not created by Disney, but they are part of the family now.

To your point on DCA, the biggest part of the revival is Carsland, based on a Pixar movie that came out 1 month after Disney acquired Pixar. It was an acquired movie with acquired characters. Who cares? Disney made a fantastic land out of the movie. If they make a fantastic land out of Muppets (Muppets Studios) or Star Wars or Indy who cares if they didn't create the characters as long as the attention to detail is there and it's done well.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
jam814

jam814

Member
GoofGoof said:
Splash Mountain is my favorite. Hardly classic characters.
Click to expand...
Agreed thats what i don't understand why everyone was so against avatarland. who cares that nobody knows the characters it made a boat load of money because it was visually stunning and took 3d someplace new. the film maybe flawed but the world cameron created is something else. it would need to be done correctly, using the new moving plant tech and other tech along with bringing to life this crazy environment would be a most see. not knowing the characters wouldnt of made a difference, everyone knows the blue creatures, but it is all about the experience, they created. This would no way be cheap but to do it right and create things like the floating mountains would have to be done full force, no cutting corners. I think Cameron holding out until he gets what he wants is the right move, let him expand his world and see how the public reacts to his new films. then if they do well move forward and pull out all the stops for this.Im glad the project is at a standoff, if they aren't going to do it right then they shouldnt do it.


i am no way a major fan of avatar, i saw it once in theaters, 3d of course and was a bit disappointed. but there is no denying he created a visual epic. i really have no interest in seeing sequels to this besides to see what he does with pandora.If done correctly it would certently be a great addition to AK. staying with the ECOfriendly theme and giving guests a never seen before experience, is what would drive people to the land, not the fact it's based on the biggest boxoffice movie.
 
Magenta Panther

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
Why are the muppets not Disney? They were not created by Disney, but they are part of the family now.

To your point on DCA, the biggest part of the revival is Carsland, based on a Pixar movie that came out 1 month after Disney acquired Pixar. It was an acquired movie with acquired characters. Who cares? Disney made a fantastic land out of the movie. If they make a fantastic land out of Muppets (Muppets Studios) or Star Wars or Indy who cares if they didn't create the characters as long as the attention to detail is there and it's done well.
Click to expand...

Disney had a hand in Pixar from the very beginning - Lasseter was trained by and worked for Disney, and admires and uses much of the Disney aesthetic in his films. That's one of the reasons Pixar and Disney are such a good fit. In that regard, there's a big difference between John Lasseter and say, Stan Lee. ;)
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
Bolna said:
I never got the ownership discussion. After all so many of the Disney characters were not invented by Disney either, they come from fairytales and books, so they are not owned by Disney. Disney owns only the look they created for those characters. And I agree very much with your explanation of typology of content.
Click to expand...

But while many of these stories are not new - the presentation and characterization of them was. They were stories in a new medium. They had 'space' between them and previous versions. It's not like Disney was rebooting a recent presentation in a similar format. The same can't be said of taking a property that has already been done in the same medium for which you want to use it.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
unkadug said:
More people are apt to know about Brer Rabbit than about Song of the South.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I had ridden Splash many times before I ever knew it was based on a Disney movie. I always thought it was just based on the old folk tales. Since the movie is not available on DVD and I doubt it is shown on Cable anymore I am probably not alone.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
Why are the muppets not Disney? They were not created by Disney, but they are part of the family now.
Click to expand...
But are they really? Disney spent years trying to make the Muppets more "Disney" and it never really worked. It was not until that was finally tossed aside that we started getting new content that was more in keeping with being typological "Muppet." So again, the issue is not of ownership, but spirit of content.

This is also why I am so concerned about Marvel. While Marvel has many typologies of content, including some that are similar to "Disney," their best content is not within the "Disney" type. But Disney bought Marvel to fill a gap in their offerings, little boys, which does not align with the deepest and most powerful of Marvel's stories.

menamechris said:
But most kids know Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah. That connection alone makes the characters seem familiar to children.
Click to expand...
Splash Mountain works because the content was recontextualized for a theme park environment. Ever intellectual property, if it is to be successful in a theme park, needs to be recontextualized. Yes, depth can be added by knowing the source, but fundamentally it needs to work just like an original creation, as that is how interest and longevity are maintained. That is why The Wizarding World of Harry Potter works so well, because it works for more than just those who know the story.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom