TheRaider.net
 

Go Back   The Raven > Off Topic > Open Discussion
User Name
Password

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-27-2016, 06:13 PM   #26
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
Who, ... I mean who can possibly capture the essence of Julie Andrews iconic representation of the nanny?


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:

Quote:
Originally Posted by roundshort in Post 13
And JBrod - have to argue the [crowds in the ] parks are fine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by roundshort
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!
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2016, 11:57 PM   #27
roundshort
IndyFan
 
roundshort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Napa CA
Posts: 4,037
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
roundshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2016, 12:37 AM   #28
James-Bean
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Somewhere in Time!!!
Posts: 19
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.
James-Bean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2016, 09:51 AM   #29
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,670
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.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 04:23 AM   #30
DoomsdayFAN
IndyFan
 
DoomsdayFAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: I step on something. Feel like fortune cookie.
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.
DoomsdayFAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 12:05 PM   #31
Moedred
Administrator
 
Moedred's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: California
Posts: 4,602
From a Saving Mr Banks review, that punctures the corporate revisionism:
Quote:
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.
Moedred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 08:57 PM   #32
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,670
Quote:
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.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2016, 09:30 PM   #33
WilliamBoyd8
IndyFan
 
WilliamBoyd8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northern California
Posts: 754
So would Madison.

WilliamBoyd8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2017, 09:06 PM   #34
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,549
New fodder for this topic:

Pandora

Epic miss on Disney's part?
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2017, 10:31 AM   #35
IndyBuff
IndyFan
 
IndyBuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
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.
IndyBuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2017, 01:09 PM   #36
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
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.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2017, 08:28 PM   #37
roundshort
IndyFan
 
roundshort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Napa CA
Posts: 4,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
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.
roundshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2017, 09:38 AM   #38
JasonMa
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 140
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.
JasonMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2017, 01:47 PM   #39
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,391
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.
Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2017, 01:07 PM   #40
TheDutchGhost
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raiders112390
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.
TheDutchGhost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2017, 09:31 PM   #41
Joe Brody
IndyFan
 
Joe Brody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Sweetest Place on Earth
Posts: 2,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDutchGhost
First of all, Disney has always been a corporation.

That's too harsh. Disneyland in its original incarnation was not the product of a corporation. Same for the early Disney films and cartoons. They were the product of a visionary.

Today? Apart from Marvel (recent acquisition), I pretty much agree with you on the creatively bankrupt observation. By chance, I spent a few days last year with someone senior on the media side and came away disappointed.
Joe Brody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2017, 10:44 AM   #42
IndyBuff
IndyFan
 
IndyBuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,255
It's true that Disney has certainly shifted over the last few decades. I watched The Great Mouse Detective last night for the first time in at least 20 years and was struck how wonderful it still is. Back then Disney wasn't as concerned with political correctness or pushing an agenda, but rather will telling compelling stories that appealed to both children and adults. Now everything is so safe and coordinated that it feels largely hollow. Even the parks themselves feel slightly off, as if a piece of the original magic has been last and forgotten.
IndyBuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2017, 01:08 PM   #43
Kai Hagen
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 119
I feel sorry for the children who didn't grow up on the classical Disney movies and animations.
Kai Hagen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2017, 01:37 PM   #44
Pale Horse
Moderator
 
Pale Horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: L.A.
Posts: 6,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai Hagen
I feel sorry for the children who didn't grow up on the classical Disney movies and animations.

Especially since there's absolutely no way for us to ever see them again.
Pale Horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2017, 05:44 PM   #45
Finn
Moderator
 
Finn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Finland
Posts: 8,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pale Horse
Especially since there's absolutely no way for us to ever see them again.
Was about to post something similar to this. As someone born in the 80s, I remember watching - already back in the 80s - a lot of cartoons from the 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s and even 30s.

If this was possible nearly three decades ago, has that technology gone somewhere? Okay, well, I don't own a VCR anymore...
Finn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2017, 03:02 AM   #46
Le Saboteur
IndyFan
 
Le Saboteur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sham Shui Po
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonMa
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.

While this is true, I find the rest of your thesis to be suspect. Operating revenue is up ~6% year over year for the past five years, and net income has practically doubled in the same time frame. Paying attention to quarterly results is a terrible idea, and it needs to stop. It does more harm than good.

You're not going to be able to ride an Episode VII or The Avengers to the bank year in and year out.

ESPN remains a concern, but I don't know that it's a permanent anchor. ABC-Disney seems to be partnering with more and more streaming services to offer its channels and will eventually make up some of that subscriber base. More if they can eventually offer it as a standalone component or the new streaming cable services even out their pricing.

Overpaying for content for years has been a problem. General bloat too.

Cars 3 is going to move sofa king much merchandise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Brody
Epic miss on Disney's part?

It has two rides. Two. For me that's a problem.

As for an 'epic miss'? No, not yet. Avatar & Pandora is Disney Parks direct answer to The Wizarding World of Harry Potter, with a possibly bigger upside. Harry Potter is done. Fantastic Beasts isn't as universally loved (I found it to be the best Potter movie to date), but it'll keep people pumping the turnstiles. If Cameron can convince audiences that Avatar wasn't a glorified tech demo for a second and third time then whoever greenlit the project is going to look like a genius.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Attila the Professor
...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.

You forget the park was originally supposed to have a land dedicated to... fantastical beasts. Avatar slots oddly into that spot, but it does fill part of that need. Its larger themes do otherwise work within the overall scheme. I think using Wakanda* would have worked as well and not required ponying up any extra cash to Cameron.

* - I recently had my hands on a copy of the contract between Marvel & Universal, and it looks like there are ways to add Marvel characters to the Florida parks. The primary tenant seems to be that they can't have been an Avenger. It rules out Black Panther from appearing (for now),
but I think Wakanda is fair game.


Worth reading.

Last edited by Le Saboteur : 06-06-2017 at 03:11 AM.
Le Saboteur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2017, 09:48 AM   #47
JasonMa
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
* - I recently had my hands on a copy of the contract between Marvel & Universal, and it looks like there are ways to add Marvel characters to the Florida parks. The primary tenant seems to be that they can't have been an Avenger. It rules out Black Panther from appearing (for now),
but I think Wakanda is fair game.

Did you see the 60(?) mile restriction though? I think that trumps the possible out through heroes not in use at the time of the contract (which is how people believe Disney is getting away with some of the Guardians stuff).

And I believe the restriction you're referring to is any hero/team currently in use by Universal. Which would be Spider-Man, the Fantastic Four, X-Men , and Avengers. That's almost the whole of the (recognizable) Marvel stable. There's also some question on if it has to be in an attraction or if just the theming they have prevents Disney from using it.
JasonMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2017, 11:19 AM   #48
IndyBuff
IndyFan
 
IndyBuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur


You forget the park was originally supposed to have a land dedicated to... fantastical beasts. Avatar slots oddly into that spot, but it does fill part of that need. Its larger themes do otherwise work within the overall scheme. I think using Wakanda* would have worked as well and not required ponying up any extra cash to Cameron.

I had totally forgotten about this but you're right. They had initially planned to do something with dragons and other creatures if I remember correctly. It's kind of neat to see that theme come back but there are dozens of other franchises that would be more interesting than Pandora. The hype over Avatar has long since faded.
IndyBuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2017, 01:19 PM   #49
JasonMa
IndyFan
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndyBuff
I had totally forgotten about this but you're right. They had initially planned to do something with dragons and other creatures if I remember correctly. It's kind of neat to see that theme come back but there are dozens of other franchises that would be more interesting than Pandora. The hype over Avatar has long since faded.
You can see the dragon in the logo. They had created a second logo when tehy dropped Beastly Kingdom without the dragon but you don't see it as much:
JasonMa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2017, 06:29 PM   #50
Attila the Professor
Moderator
 
Attila the Professor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 6,391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Saboteur
You forget the park was originally supposed to have a land dedicated to... fantastical beasts. Avatar slots oddly into that spot, but it does fill part of that need. Its larger themes do otherwise work within the overall scheme. I think using Wakanda* would have worked as well and not required ponying up any extra cash to Cameron.

Not forgetting, in this case. Fantastical beasts as filtered through European myths, stories, and legends, as the early spelling of that land as "Beastlie Kingdomme" would suggest. Unicorns, dragons, and the like, primarily medieval, but also with some Greek material as filtered through Fantasia. (See more, including some art, here.)

Attila the Professor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:33 AM.