Does anyone kind of dislike Disney now?

Joe Brody

Well-known member
TheDutchGhost said:
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.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
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.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Kai Hagen said:
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.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Pale Horse said:
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? <small>Okay, well, I don't own a VCR anymore...</small>
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
JasonMa said:
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.

Joe Brody said:
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.

Attila the Professor said:
...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:

JasonMa

Active member
Le Saboteur said:
* - 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.
 

IndyBuff

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
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.
 

JasonMa

Active member
IndyBuff said:
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:
0eee133ea3ac25e264e3285cb49a6e0d.jpg
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Le Saboteur said:
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.)

Avatarkingdom_fantasyconcept.preview-590x393.jpg
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
I've done a little reading and it seems the whole Avatar deal boils down to one thing that Yesterland doesn't have to offer: 'luminescence.' Disney needed a complementary land for Animal Kingdom that they could keep open after dark. Pandora affords Disney that option. I wonder what alcohol is available in Pandora? The Younger Generations may never stupidly be tethered to a stupid cable bill and ESPN but they will drink and a park serving booze is an annuity any investor should be pleased with in these days of minimal returns.

Le Saboteur said:
* - 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.

You've got to explain that one to me. Why would Avenger characters be tied-up by a deal with Universal?
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
JasonMa said:
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).

A lawyer friend seems to think the 60-mile restriction ties in with the heroes currently in use, and is not an impediment to introducing other superheroes to the Florida parks. I forget his exact reasoning, but this is why The Mouse retains more lawyers than most law firms.

JasonMa said:
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.

I don't believe Disney is overly concerned with adding Spider-Man to any of the parks yet. They can sit back and rake in the licensing and merchandising money without any significant outlay.

Before Marvel's success at the box office, the number of recognizable superheroes could be counted on one hand -- Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Hulk. That's it. The general public probably couldn't tell you whose stable they belonged to, but they knew the characters. The number of superheroes that are recognizable today are more, but, in Marvel's case, they made them worth recognizing. Or did everybody really care about a talking tree and an angry raccoon four years ago?

That's part of Disney's abilities -- creating a need you didn't know existed, and then supplying you with the thing that fills that need. Black Panther is going to open all kinds of new avenues, and Disney's going to fill that need. And then those second-tier names are suddenly recognizable.

But before I go on a tangent: The Avengers restriction is particularly curious, because of how fluid the lineup has been over the years. Which incarnation of the team is off limits? All incarnations? Nearly every single character in the Marvel Universe has been an Avenger at one point or another.

I want to see a Moon Knight Netflix series. Who doesn't want to see an mentally unstable Batman on screen?

moon_knight_costume_design_by_pungang-da47kml.png


Joe Brody said:
You've got to explain that one to me. Why would Avenger characters be tied-up by a deal with Universal?

Back in the 90's when the entire comic book industry was on the verge of collapse, Universal scooped up the rights to Marvel's characters during their fire sale. Those rights were limited to theme parks on the East Coast only, and nothing is supposed to appear within 60-miles of Universal Orlando bearing the Marvel brand and aforementioned characters. The sticking point seems to be over which characters are formally iced out.

Joe Brody said:
I wonder what alcohol is available in Pandora?
/

All the booze.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-8vonWWx3rY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

JasonMa

Active member
Le Saboteur said:
Before Marvel's success at the box office, the number of recognizable superheroes could be counted on one hand -- Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Hulk. That's it.
Captain America too I'd say. Otherwise, yeah. You might be able to make a case for Thor but its a stretch.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
Back in the 90's when the entire comic book industry was on the verge of collapse, Universal scooped up the rights to Marvel's characters during their fire sale. Those rights were limited to theme parks on the East Coast only, and nothing is supposed to appear within 60-miles of Universal Orlando bearing the Marvel brand and aforementioned characters. The sticking point seems to be over which characters are formally iced out.

Got it. I'm an idiot. Believe it or not but when I read your prior post I was thinking 'Universal' as in the movie studio -- and not the parks. I recall the old Marvel rides at Universal and this is all coming back to me.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
To answer the question at hand: No, not really.

I bought a videogame that later helped Disney decide to bring back DuckTales.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/YKSU82afy1w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why does Mrs. Beakley look like an East German wrestler?!

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/aAm8aw_7RXM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Finn said:
Maybe she is one.

Possibly. She must have been hanging around with Race Bannon & Brock Samson.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ELtEn2wQ3pA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Webbigail Vanderquack is almost a carbon copy of Mabel Pines.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wu0kqEN2iFk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Huge bonus points though for restoring Donald to his proper place.

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/0-LNgU4e1rE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The homages to Carl Banks' original paintings and comics are neat too.


<img src="https://68.media.tumblr.com/ed1c237979ca7de728009a9cbd22fee4/tumblr_orjvngsv0F1vouzb7o2_r1_1280.jpg" width="600" height="800" alt="Carl Banks Homages">
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Joe Brody said:
. . .as a family man, the boozing in EPCOT is a bit of a drag. The kids saw some boorish behavior. Which is alright . . . and interesting, because there was a lot of twenty something drinking in Universal's Wizarding Worlds and it wasn't as sloppy (at least what I saw of it) as what I saw at EPCOT. The drinking around the world stuff is institutionalized.

Here's one of the cuter clips (with some production value & I'm a sucker for anything with Fast & Furious music)

<iframe width="426" height="240" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/e9MsQAIS5hw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That said, as far as Disney and alcohol goes in general, I like the balance in Disney's 4 parks. It just so happens that I like EPCOT and there's some irony in that the area around The American Experience is Beer Garden II.

(and for the record, EPCOT doesn't know how to pull a pint based on the one in the video above)

Since Disney is such a big buyer, old media doesn't give much ink to all the drinking in Epcot, but it is kinda hard to ignore when its Alex Morgan
 

WilliamBoyd8

Active member
EPCOT's latest menace, drunken soccer players (Sunday, October 2, 2017):

'Belligerent' Alex Morgan and other soccer pros kicked out of Disney's Epcot

Morgan, a star for the World Cup-winning U.S. national team who also plays for the Orlando Pride, was among three soccer players kicked out of an Epcot park restaurant on Sunday. Authorities say the players were verbally aggressive with park security and other guests.

MLS players Donald Toia and Giles Barnes of Orlando City SC were also ejected. A sheriff's report says the group began arguing with other guests and workers after Barnes cut in line at the United Kingdom Pavilion pub.

http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Alex-Morgan-apologizes-for-weekend-incident-at-12252883.php

:)
 
Last edited:
Top