Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Go, comcast, go!!!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Blue Lagoon View Post

    See the thread about ”Are Marvel Characters Disney?”
    I see your argument there, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Pinocchio was created by Carlo Collodi, but depicted first by Disney. Well, no he wasn't. There was a live action film in 1911. There was even an unfinished Italian animated film in 1936.

    Dumbo was created by Helen Aberson and first depicted in illustrated form by Harold Pearl. How is a Dumbo comic different than a Stan Lee comic?

    Alice in Wonderland was created by Lewis Carrol. There were numerous depictions of Alice before the Disney film. There were stage productions as early as 1886 and films as early as 1903.

    Mary Poppins was created by P.L. Travers, but first depicted in a 1949 CBS television series.

    The Jungle Book was created by Rudyard Kiplink, It was first depicted in a live-action movie in 1941.


    At best what you can say about all these movies is that the characters and storylines we see in the parks are uniquely Disney interpretations of these works of fiction. But if that is the threshold, then the same is true of Marvel. The Guardians of the Galaxy we see on film and in the parks are very different than the ones that appeared in comics. How would their depiction on film not be uniquely Disney. The same can be said, to varying degrees, about all the other Marvel characters. None of their depiction in films are 100% faithful to the comics. Their stories were adapted by Disney to appeal to a boarder audience and with a style that is better suited to film and real-life encounters than on the pages of comics.

    Comment


    • #22
      IMO
      Disney have to many IP base

      Disney is Destroying Disney=themselves !
      Last edited by Eagleman; 05-23-2018, 07:18 PM.
      Soaring like an EAGLE !

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by Blue Lagoon View Post

        Foxland? But Disneyland is ALREADY practically Pixar/Star Wars land. What’s the difference? Disney doesn’t need another company to destroy them. Disney does an AMAZING job of destroying Walt Disney themselves.

        *Cough* Pixar Pier *Cough*.
        For Disneyland I came up with 4 attractions that are either Pixar or Star Wars based.

        Star Tours – The Adventures Continue
        Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters
        Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage
        Star Wars: Path of the Jedi


        With the total number of attractions listed in Disneyland that is right around 10% of the total attractions based on Pixar/Star Wars. Now, you will notice that Hyperspace Mountain is not listed as that is an "overlay" and not permanent. I also did not count something like Launch Bay as I consider that more of a Meet & Greet/Store rather than an actual Attraction. But based on this how exactly does having only about 10% of attractions dedicated to Pixar/SW equate to the statement that "Disneyland is ALREADY practically Pixar/Star Wars land"?

        Now, DCA does have significantly more based on Pixar/Marvel, but it is still a bit below 50%. So I wonder about the Pixar Pier comment as I got the feeling that as long as these IP's did not invade "Disneyland" they are more acceptable.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by DLMountainFan View Post

          For Disneyland I came up with 4 attractions that are either Pixar or Star Wars based.

          Star Tours – The Adventures Continue
          Buzz Lightyear Astro Blasters
          Finding Nemo Submarine Voyage
          Star Wars: Path of the Jedi


          With the total number of attractions listed in Disneyland that is right around 10% of the total attractions based on Pixar/Star Wars. Now, you will notice that Hyperspace Mountain is not listed as that is an "overlay" and not permanent. I also did not count something like Launch Bay as I consider that more of a Meet & Greet/Store rather than an actual Attraction. But based on this how exactly does having only about 10% of attractions dedicated to Pixar/SW equate to the statement that "Disneyland is ALREADY practically Pixar/Star Wars land"?

          Now, DCA does have significantly more based on Pixar/Marvel, but it is still a bit below 50%. So I wonder about the Pixar Pier comment as I got the feeling that as long as these IP's did not invade "Disneyland" they are more acceptable.
          Pixar Pier pisses me off. I don’t object to the “beautification” if you will, but I DO object to:

          A) Changing the name to Pixar Pier from “Paradise Pier”

          B) Literally wiping the faces of Donald, Pluto, Goofy, Dumbo etc. off of the Fun Wheel (I bet they would have taken Mickey’s face off of it too, but knew that would have been an egregious step too far that they would have been rightfully slammed hard over)

          C) Changing the Games of the Boardwalk from Dumbo, Casey at Bat etc. to freaking Wall-E, for example.

          D) Dropping a Mid Century Modern queue area into a pier that is supposed to be early 20th Century.

          E) That Box thing they’ve dropped on the Boardwalk.

          P.S. This list is not definitive.
          Last edited by Blue Lagoon; 05-23-2018, 07:40 PM.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by TommyBaseball View Post

            I see your argument there, but it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Pinocchio was created by Carlo Collodi, but depicted first by Disney. Well, no he wasn't. There was a live action film in 1911. There was even an unfinished Italian animated film in 1936.

            Dumbo was created by Helen Aberson and first depicted in illustrated form by Harold Pearl. How is a Dumbo comic different than a Stan Lee comic?

            Alice in Wonderland was created by Lewis Carrol. There were numerous depictions of Alice before the Disney film. There were stage productions as early as 1886 and films as early as 1903.

            Mary Poppins was created by P.L. Travers, but first depicted in a 1949 CBS television series.

            The Jungle Book was created by Rudyard Kiplink, It was first depicted in a live-action movie in 1941.


            At best what you can say about all these movies is that the characters and storylines we see in the parks are uniquely Disney interpretations of these works of fiction. But if that is the threshold, then the same is true of Marvel. The Guardians of the Galaxy we see on film and in the parks are very different than the ones that appeared in comics. How would their depiction on film not be uniquely Disney. The same can be said, to varying degrees, about all the other Marvel characters. None of their depiction in films are 100% faithful to the comics. Their stories were adapted by Disney to appeal to a boarder audience and with a style that is better suited to film and real-life encounters than on the pages of comics.
            If you read posts #7 and #17 thoroughly (which it seems you did not) it’s all covered.

            Go back and reread what I wrote, carefully. Compare to how you responded. You’ll see where you went wrong. Seems like you read it quickly and superficially.

            Do not confuse ownership rights with creation and/or depiction.
            Last edited by Blue Lagoon; 05-23-2018, 07:49 PM.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Blue Lagoon View Post

              If you read posts #7 and #17 thoroughly (which it seems you did not) it’s all covered.

              Go back and reread what I wrote, carefully. Compare to how you responded. You’ll see where you went wrong. Seems like you read it quickly and superficially.

              Do not confuse ownership rights with creation and/or depiction.
              First off, if you are citing other threads to make your argument, the least you can do is link to it so the other person doesn't have to search for it.

              Secondly, I did read the entire post, carefully and analytically. Putting aside ad hominem attacks, your argument is not logically consistent. If what makes something Disney is not the act of creation (which as I noted would exclude many of the beloved "Disney" characters), but rather a unique depiction, then certainly Marvel characters, portrayed in the parks as they appear in the Disney-created movies rather than as they appear in their Stan Lee created comic book forms makes them Disney the same way an animated Alice is Disney while the nearly identical Lewis Carol Alice is not. What changes did Disney make to the blue-eyed, blonde-haired, blue-dress-wearing English girl that makes her Disney, while completely changing the backstory of the protagonist in Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't make that character Disney?

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by TommyBaseball View Post

                First off, if you are citing other threads to make your argument, the least you can do is link to it so the other person doesn't have to search for it.

                Secondly, I did read the entire post, carefully and analytically. Putting aside ad hominem attacks, your argument is not logically consistent. If what makes something Disney is not the act of creation (which as I noted would exclude many of the beloved "Disney" characters), but rather a unique depiction, then certainly Marvel characters, portrayed in the parks as they appear in the Disney-created movies rather than as they appear in their Stan Lee created comic book forms makes them Disney the same way an animated Alice is Disney while the nearly identical Lewis Carol Alice is not. What changes did Disney make to the blue-eyed, blonde-haired, blue-dress-wearing English girl that makes her Disney, while completely changing the backstory of the protagonist in Guardians of the Galaxy doesn't make that character Disney?
                It is completely logically consistent.


                There are two things that need to be taken into account: creation, and depiction.

                Mickey Mouse, Donald, Goofy etc. are Disney. Their creation and depiction is 100% Walt Disney. Same with Oswald.

                The characters Pooh, Poppins, Snow White, Peter Pan etc., were not created by Disney, but the depictions of said characters in use in Disneyland are Disney.

                The Muppets on the other hand are not Disney. The creation of those characters and their depiction, are Jim Henson. Disney may own the rights now, but they will never be Disney.

                Marvel characters are not Disney. The creation of those characters and their depiction is Marvel/Stan Lee. Disney may now own the rights, but the will never be Disney.

                Star Wars/Indy (and I love the Indy attraction), are not Disney. The creation of those characters and their depictionare George Lucas/Lucasfilm. They will never be Disney.


                Do not confuse ownership rights with creation and/or depiction.
                Last edited by Blue Lagoon; 05-24-2018, 01:45 AM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Blue Lagoon View Post

                  Pixar Pier pisses me off. I don’t object to the “beautification” if you will, but I DO object to:

                  A) Changing the name to Pixar Pier from “Paradise Pier”

                  B) Literally wiping the faces of Donald, Pluto, Goofy, Dumbo etc. off of the Fun Wheel (I bet they would have taken Mickey’s face off of it too, but knew that would have been an egregious step too far that they would have been rightfully slammed hard over)

                  C) Changing the Games of the Boardwalk from Dumbo, Casey at Bat etc. to freaking Wall-E, for example.

                  D) Dropping a Mid Century Modern queue area into a pier that is supposed to be early 20th Century.

                  E) That Box thing they’ve dropped on the Boardwalk.

                  P.S. This list is not definitive.
                  Your complaints about Pixar Pier does not answer the question that I was asking.

                  How does having a very small percentage of attractions in Disneyland based on Pixar/SW equate to it being ALREADY(your emphasis) practically Pixar/SW? I guess I am trying to figure out your definition of "practically"

                  Pixar Pier is not Disneyland, I do agree with some of the criticisms and will probably never be able to call the "Pal-A-Round" anything other than the Fun Wheel. As for it being a Victorian theme, the pier for.DCA 1.0 was definitely not Victorian era, the reboot turned it into that. Based on the current progress it appears that they are keeping aspects of the Victorian Theme which I think is a good thing and am still going to wait to see what the final product is.

                  If Pixar Pier is your primary or even sole reason for that statement, in the past you have left the impression that as long as things like this are not "in" Disneyland it was at least tolerable. So do you now consider DCA part of "Disneyland" which makes it off limits for any new Non-Disney IP's?

                  Also, don't forget that in adding Pixar Pier, they are really just swapping Bug's Land(Pixar) for Marvel and depending on the fate of Flick's Flyers in terms of "attractions" is going to be about an even.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    I would also add this: Disneyland is special because it's a place for the entire family to enjoy. Seeing a kid meet his or her hero is just magical. The times are changing, kids' heroes are different than when Disneyland opened in 1955. I was never a big Star Wars or Marvel fan growing up, but I know that a lot of kids are. And for them to be able to meet their heroes at Disneyland or DCA is what Disneyland is all about.
                    The purpose of Disneyland is to make people smile.

                    Kevin Plank

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by DLMountainFan View Post

                      Your complaints about Pixar Pier does not answer the question that I was asking.

                      How does having a very small percentage of attractions in Disneyland based on Pixar/SW equate to it being ALREADY(your emphasis) practically Pixar/SW? I guess I am trying to figure out your definition of "practically.
                      It’s not just about attractions. It’s about overlays that keep coming back like a bad case of acid reflux (Hyperspace Mountain). It’s about “Season of the Force” that came and has never quite gone away. It’s about “Pixar Fest”. It’s about classic original, non IP based attractions having Pixar slapped onto them. like Finding Nemo and the submarines. It’s about Star Traders being filled with Star Wars crap instead of unique Disneyland/Tomorrowland mechandise that you used to be able to find there. It’s about Star Wars meet and greets in Disneyland. It’s all just so...gross.

                      Comment


                      • #31
                        I would much rather Disney focus on creating new properties rather than acquiring them. That being said, the Fox purchase makes sense especially since Disney will get the original Star wars films and a lot of the Marvel films. Even if Comcast makes the purchase, I'd like to see Disney get those films under their control.

                        Comment


                        • #32
                          Originally posted by Blue Lagoon View Post

                          It is completely logically consistent.

                          It is not.

                          We both agree that creation does not make something Disney as most Disney properties were not created by Disney.

                          It cannot be that the first depiction of a character in popular media makes them Disney as my previous posts highlighted characters and stories that are widely accepted as Disney characters despite their first depiction in popular media not being by Disney.

                          It has not yet been discussed, but it can't be that the most popular depiction of the characters in question makes them Disney. Clearly beloved Disney characters like Alice or Mary Poppins were most famously portrayed by Disney, but the same can be said about Marvel characters. Disney movie releases with Marvel characters far exceed the popularity of those characters in their comic book form.

                          So that leaves the degree to which or the freedom with which Disney can change the portrayal of the characters in their movie when compared to the original source material. This seems like a reasonable distinction, but if that is the case, your claim that Alice as portrayed by Disney is further removed from Lewis Carol's depiction of Alice than Disney's portrayal of Guardians of the Galaxy is removed from Stan Lee's GotG is either ignorant or disingenuous. Disney made major changes to the GotG backstories and character personality in their film portrayal, much more than their portrayal of Alice. Any objective observer would concede that. With that being the case, the assertion that Alice is a Disney property but GotG is not is inconsistent with the criteria you have presented.
                          Last edited by TommyBaseball; 05-24-2018, 08:33 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #33
                            Originally posted by stovk View Post
                            I'm no fan of Comcast, but I think this would be good. I would prefer Disney to concentrate on "Disney" and give up this notion of acquisitions in order to move the Company along on autopilot. Honestly, ever since Disney started building their empire via IPs and acquisitions/mergers, the creativity has diminished.

                            Sure it will put them in a financial disadvantage, but I think that's what Disney needs. A little motivation to step things up and stop resting on their laurels. Maybe this will shake things up.
                            Actually, it would mean one less major expenditure, in the short term. There is a small chance that the money could be reallocated to something more appealing to some of us and/or reduce the chance of budget cuts to projects currently in the works.
                            Dead Mice Tell No Tails!

                            Comment


                            • #34
                              Originally posted by Blue Lagoon View Post

                              It’s not just about attractions. It’s about overlays that keep coming back like a bad case of acid reflux (Hyperspace Mountain). It’s about “Season of the Force” that came and has never quite gone away. It’s about “Pixar Fest”. It’s about classic original, non IP based attractions having Pixar slapped onto them. like Finding Nemo and the submarines. It’s about Star Traders being filled with Star Wars crap instead of unique Disneyland/Tomorrowland mechandise that you used to be able to find there. It’s about Star Wars meet and greets in Disneyland. It’s all just so...gross.
                              It's not just about attractions...okay I'll keep that in mind for future reference.

                              The overlays are just temporary and Hyperspace mountain will be going away in just over a week from now based on current reports. But let's expand this out even further..

                              Meet & Greets.
                              You are right there is Launch Bay, but can you name any other major location in Disneyland for Pixar or SW characters? Because I can name several other Non-Pixar/SW ones. You have PFF, Mickey & Minnie's House, Pixie Hollow, and Pooh's Spot. Even if you count characters such as the ones around Town Square you will find that the numbers still heavily favor "Disney" Characters.

                              Food...
                              Disneyland has no Table Service restaurants that are themed toward SW or Pixar, and in about a month DCA will have only one. As for Quick Service I come up with 2 Galactic Grill and Alien Pizza Planet(Overlay). Just how many other Non Pixar/SW Quick Service restaurants are there in Disneyland?

                              Stores...
                              I count 3 that are Pixar/SW themed; Launch Bay, Star Traders, and Store Command. There was a 4th next across from Launch Bay(I forgot it's name) but the last time I went by it last week it is now dedicated to Stitch. Again out of how many total stores in Disneyland? By the way, the lack of "unique" items is not a Star Wars or Pixar related issue, that is a much bigger issue and one for different threads and that have been discussed many times before.

                              Entertainment...
                              This is one that is a bit harder since it does vary widely and some may not be there on all days. There is Friends Forever, Pixar Play Parade, Jedi Training, and the March of the First Order. However, there is still Fantasmic, Mickey and the Magical Map as "major" shows, along with several "bands", the Dapper Dan's, and the Piano Player.

                              If I missed anything I am sure you let me know.

                              But if I stay out of Tomorrowland, I could go through probably 90% of the rest of Disneyland and not see anything related to Pixar or Star Wars. .

                              So again how does this equate to Disneyland ALREADY being practically Pixar/SW. If even one "overlay" or 1 reference to Pixar defines it for you as being taken over by Pixar that's fine and your opinion. I am just trying to see what the defining point is.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X