Does anyone kind of dislike Disney now?

roundshort

Active member
Just heard that Disney's ABC show, Once Upon a Time has been featuring some good old fashioned Lesbian love. I love this! Good for them. I wonder if they worry about who uses their bathrooms?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Fairies don't excrete, just ask Tinkerbell.

I did hear one hiccup in the Mouse's Kingdom. Mary Poppins II?

Considering what Travers went though in getting the first to screen, I'm not entirely sure the Company can adequately convey the 2nd or 3rd visits she had to 17 Cherry Tree Lane with the same sort of magic.

Who, ... I mean who can possibly capture the essence of Julie Andrews iconic representation of the nanny?

ImperfectCalculatingAmericankestrel.gif
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
Who, ... I mean who can possibly capture the essence of Julie Andrews iconic representation of the nanny?

Emily Blunt, apparently, who certainly seems a credible choice, if such a project is to exist. As does, by the way, Lin-Manuel Miranda for composer, who seems as likely as anyone to remember that one of <I>Mary Poppins</I>'s best songs in its uniformly great score was about a bank.

It's interesting. The Iger regime has largely abandoned the Eisner taste for direct-to-video sequels in favor of live-action remakes of animated films, which can easily be ignored. Sure, there's some kind of <I>Pete's Dragon</I> project happening, but I confess I've never seen that film's appeal, so a second attempt isn't such a bad idea. But <I>Mary Poppins</I> is the truest masterpiece in Disney's non-animated canon. Maybe that makes a revisiting inevitable, but also a little bit unwelcome.

Curious bit of math: the original 1964 film took place in 1910. This sequel is likely to be released in 2018, judging from Variety's sense of open live-action slots. 2018-1964=54. 1964-1910=54. Will Julie Andrews's Poppins bookend the film to segue us into a younger Poppins, since, after all, the character is inconceivable in the 1960s?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Attila the Professor said:
Emily Blunt, apparently, who certainly seems a credible choice, if such a project is to exist. As does, by the way, Lin-Manuel Miranda for composer, who seems as likely as anyone to remember that one of <I>Mary Poppins</I>'s best songs in its uniformly great score was about a bank.

Well I'll be a monkey's cousin...uncle, no Jungle Book pun intended.

It's interesting. The Iger regime has largely abandoned the Eisner taste for direct-to-video sequels in favor of live-action remakes of animated films, which can easily be ignored.

It's been a risky bet in my eyes, but I've yet to be disappointed. To that end, I haven't exactly been wowed, either. Makes you wonder if the bean counters want my money once, or if they're hoping to get it, over and over.

Of all their products, their live films (for me) have the least value.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Pale Horse said:
Who, ... I mean who can possibly capture the essence of Julie Andrews iconic representation of the nanny?

ImperfectCalculatingAmericankestrel.gif

Agreed. Truly more attractive as a brunette than a blonde (Sound of Music).

However, [In my best Quentin Tarantino Pulp Fiction 'Jimmy' voice]: Emily Blunt is nice.


Joy:

roundshort in Post 13 said:
And JBrod - have to argue the [crowds in the ] parks are fine.

roundshort said:
To be honest it has been years since I have actually been a park. [...] They are all too crowded.

The plasticity of roundshort logic. You never know how many rounds he has in him!
 

roundshort

Active member
You are talking about someone who lived closer in a torn that was an hour and a half drive to the closet red light. Ant crowd is too big for the round one
 

James-Bean

New member
I don't think so at all, Disney now owns Marvel, Lucasfilm (of which Indiana Jones is apart of) as well as Pixar. I think they're just evolving like any film-company would as time progresses.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
If you want a quaint read, the OCRegister (County News Paper the iconic amusement park resides in) is doing a nice little piece about how the park has changed over the last 61 years.

Read about it starting here.
 

DoomsdayFAN

Member
Raiders112390 said:
I grew up on Disney. I like every other kid loved Disney movies growing up. I still love the classics. But I feel that in the last decade or so, Disney has become a monster, totally divorced from their roots, and they've gotten to be too large; I feel they've become just another soulless corporation, and that the company run by Walt Disney (who is a hero of mine) and even the Disney of the late 80s-mid 90s is long dead...Does anyone feel in any way similar, and kind of dislike what Disney has become?

I could not agree more. This exactly.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
From a Saving Mr Banks review, that punctures the corporate revisionism:
In 1961, the studio was a stagnant pit of mediocrity. The studio’s forays into live-action filmmaking before Mary Poppins were mostly labored, obvious, and embarrassing: They included such cringe-inducing fare as Swiss Family Robinson (1960), The Shaggy Dog (1959), and The Absent-Minded Professor (1961). Any writer of taste, which Travers was, would have had every reason to worry about how her creations would be handled by a studio with such a lowbrow track record.

The Mary Poppins film is an extraordinary thing—the only extraordinary thing produced by his studio between the years of 1962 and 1986, when The Little Mermaid saved the place.
The Disney from my childhood was sparsely animated and mostly concerned with scaring children (Watcher in the Woods, Something Wicked this way Comes). It's better now.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
The Mary Poppins film is an extraordinary thing?the only extraordinary thing produced by his studio between the years of 1962 and 1986, when The Little Mermaid saved the place.

Bedknobsm Robin Hood, Winnie the Pooh, and Tron would like a word with you...

They're not Marry Poppins, but they're solid.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Joe Brody said:
New fodder for this topic:

Pandora

Epic miss on Disney's part?

When we were there in 2014 they were building it and it just seemed like a giant waste of space. I know Animal Kingdom could use a couple more solid attractions but I don't know anyone who's interested in something like this.

Time will tell but I'm much more interested in what they're doing with their Star Wars section. That's what everyone is talking about.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Joe Brody said:
New fodder for this topic:

Pandora

Epic miss on Disney's part?

If I know anything about Disney, it's part of a future project proving ground. There's zero coverage about it here on the west coast, that I've seen, though. To that end, I'd LOVE to see it.
 

roundshort

Active member
Pale Horse said:
If I know anything about Disney, it's part of a future project proving ground. There's zero coverage about it here on the west coast, that I've seen, though. To that end, I'd LOVE to see it.

I have to agree with Pale here. It seems Disney Parks has enough $$ credit to pull some major risky moves to jolt ticket sales and find 14 to 15 acres to bury another 5 to 7 thousand of guests for a few hours. Long gone are the days of painful roi research with major dollar attractions like Expedition Everest. Now build a new "land" flood it with guests if it sticks, keep it, if not rebuild. They had to do this to California adventure over the last 12 years. Cars Land finally paid off. Now they have Pandora, and soon Star Wars and Toy Story land.

The demand for new attractions is one of the few things Disney can do alone. I think they are still pissed that they did not land Harry Potter land.
 

JasonMa

Active member
The problem isn't with disney Parks, its with the Disney Company as a whole. Disney Parks is about the only "stable"/successful division they have at the moment. They do good with their tent pole movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Star Wars and the Pixar brand. Everything else is losing money. ESPN, ABC, the rest of the movie studios, etc.

So while Disney Parks may have money (and they don't have as much as you think) the Disney Company is using that money to keep other parts of the whole alive.

Also, the Disney Park fans are in general quite disappointed with how Walt Disney World has been run for the last 10 (more really) years. Disneyland Resort has done a good job focusing on what made Disney special, especially after the long California Adventure rehab/fixes, but WDW has been a bit of a mess. I'm not sure how much you want to pull form their current operation.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Pandora's looking a lot better than the travesty that's been enacted on California Adventure's Tower of Terror, but it remains an oddball choice for a park that was largely designed around representing the wildlife and natural environments of real-world places and the human culture surrounding them. I'd have gladly welcomed South America, North America, or Oceania to the bunch in its place. But it does look immersive, well-rendered, and worthy of exploration, even if the film it's derived from was rather forgettable.

So, like Cars Land, it may be a miss in concept but closer to a hit in execution.
 
Raiders112390 said:
I grew up on Disney. I like every other kid loved Disney movies growing up. I still love the classics. But I feel that in the last decade or so, Disney has become a monster, totally divorced from their roots, and they've gotten to be too large; I feel they've become just another soulless corporation, and that the company run by Walt Disney (who is a hero of mine) and even the Disney of the late 80s-mid 90s is long dead...Does anyone feel in any way similar, and kind of dislike what Disney has become?

First of all, Disney has always been a corporation.
But as you said, they weren't such a devouring monster as they have been these last decades, buying up companies and creative properties and then having so much products made in order to clean out people's wallets.
(I don't agree with how they handle certain IPs such as Star Wars and I fear for what will happen with Indy)

Personally I find Disney creatively bankrupt.

I still enjoy reading Donald Duck and Uncle Scrooge comics when done by certain writers and artists but I consider these separate from the company that owns their property rights.
 
Top