Orlando Sentinel: Disney develops big-screen versions of 3 classic attractions

[johare]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/tourism/orl-asecpirates15051502may15.story?coll=orl%2Dbusiness %2Dheadlines

[Bob O]

I think it sad that disney is so lacking in creativity that they have to now make movies based on theme park rides!!!! Is this eisner's new synergy???
Whats next a ride based on castrophe canyon or maybe based on one their restuarants at the theme park.
Jim Hill has a good article about disney failing to acquire rights to movies that were blockbusters but they are happy to now make rides based on theme park attractions.
So spiderman better be really worried as the 3 new disney movies might in total make what spiderman has done in 10 days!!!

[johare]

...the could always re-release Song of the South and have an instant movie based on Splash Mountain!

[TheLionKing]

I suppose movies based on theme park rides have a built in following. However, if the movie tanks, wouldn't you think it would affect the ride?

I hope a movie based on Superstar "Lamo" is NOT in the works.

[Micca]

Might be kinda cool. Let's see. I would be pleased to see new interest driven to the associated attractions due to the films. There is at least one generation that isn't inspired by Walt's vision on POC and HM.

[raidermatt]

I think it sad that disney is so lacking in creativity that they have to now make movies based on theme park rides!!!!

How is this "less creative" than making a movie based on story written by Hans Christien Anderson, or the Grimm's?

Certainly Spiderman has proved the story need not be original.


Its all in the execution.

[Another Voice]

How can it be less creative….?

Well, The Brothers Grimm and even ‘Spiderman’ started life as stories. Making a movie using those stories is really nothing more than a adapting them for another media. And even the three Disney attractions are stories – told in three dimensions with animation and effects – but still as valid a way of telling a story as film or theater is.

The problem from every indication is that the films have nothing at all to do with the attractions. The rides are being used simply as a marketing device because of the built-in name recognition ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ and ‘The Haunted Mansion’ have. What Disney is doing is much, much closer to “Dell Dude: The Motion Picture” than it is to Walt Disney’s adaptation of “Snow White”.

Early buzz is that ‘Country Bears’ is not-all-that-good, that ‘Haunted Mansion’ is really awful and that ‘Pirates’ was so bad it’s now being rewritten (and in a worse direction). Disney’s recent track record with their “big budget” movies doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence. It is more to pity because these films started out as small family movies like ‘Princess Diaries’ and ‘The Rookie’. But after the executive who set that course was fired, the ride movies were tagged as “giant blockbuster” hits and sucked back into the studio development process. The same one that gave us ‘Pearl Harbor’.

So for the next three summers we all get a chance to see Disney’s version of ‘Tomb Raider’ and all the cynical craftsmanship that went into that film.

[raidermatt]

AV- I think we are pretty much in agreement on this one. The fact that movies are based on rides is not necessarily a sign of a lack of creativity. Its more the execution of the ideas that will make or break them, i.e. making a lackluster big budget film vs. a quality family film, for instance.

I just hope that they pull off the execution better than the buzz indicates they have/will.

[Another Voice]

Mr. Raidermatt – yes, I think we’re in agreement too. I wish the conversation at the Studio had start with “wouldn’t it be great to do a pirate movie?” Instead I have a feeling it started with “the focus groups gave the pirate boat thing a really high Q score and merchandising already has the T-Shirts printed up while the boys at Records said that BBMak is contractually obligated to sing the closing credits song.”

I have never in my entire professional life witnessed a marketing movie that was any good. Movies like ‘Tomb Raider’, ‘Planet of the Apes’, ‘Scooby Doo’ and ‘Pearl Harbor’ where the marketing campaign came first and the movie was a minor afterthought. And none of them lived up to the hype.

I had VERY high hopes for the “ride movies” when they were first announced. Small movies to be done by good people with interesting ideas and making modest profits with little risk. Could have been wonderful.

The exact same greed that trashed the ‘Pearl Harbor’ concept is now at full work on these films as well. One rumor around town is that someone is already saying the main selling point for ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ will be “more explosions than Pearl”. That really doesn’t bode well on many, many levels.

[Bob O]

A big budget Pirate's movie with alot of special effects could be good.
But making a movie based on a 15 minute theme park ride or a hokey theme park attraction like Country bears doesnt sound appealing in the least!!! And is disney going to spend spiderman type money to make these movies???
Disney is trying to make money by hoping a good percentage of people who went on these rides will be interested enough to see the movie at least one time. I think the story isnt that important to them, they care more about the tie-ins -synergy!!

[Peter Pirate]

And movies based on comic book characters seems like a good idea? I know Spiderman is making money, so did Superman and probably scores others, but geez, what lame movies and the exact same lack of imagination that is being leveled at Disney in this thread. I'm not condoing Disney's decisions here, but they're no worse than anybody else and that, I agree, is a sad statement.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[mickey1010]

I tend to believe that creating a story from a single idea (in this case, a theme park attraction) takes more creativity than making a movie based on an entire story (short story, novel, comic). However, if more money, marketing and hype is put into it than though and story development, that's a poor decision.

I'm still anxious to see the three movies because I love the attractions. In my neverending optimism, I believe they will be "fun" movies. But that remains to be seen....

[Bob O]

Spiderman may not be Gone With the Wind material but for a movie based on a comic it was a excellant movie and i wish disney was able to create such a movie with broad based appeal that people actually want to see numerous times!!!!
Disney has shown a inability to create movies with broad based appeal that are big box office winners. Now if disney had shown any foresight in the least and was able to get their hands on something of the quality of Lord of the Rings or even of less quality MIB/Jurassic park disney could really exploit the synergy they always talk about.
But the sad reality is other than old animated movies they have little to build any franchises around so they have to team up with other companies to create StarWars/Indy Jones/Muppets to fill out their own movie theme park.
The question should be why disney cant create movies with big appeal ie-Spiderman/MIB/Star Wars or classic's like Saving Private Ryan/Gladiator.

[DVC-Landbaron]

Now if disney had shown any foresight in the least and was able to get their hands on something of the quality of Lord of the RingsOH MY GOD!!!! Bob O!! That’s very close to sacrilege!! If Disney had gotten their hands on my beloved Lord of the Rings... WOW!! I can’t even start to imagine how many of my long-winded posts you people would have to wade through!!

No! Best left to New Line. They at least did it half way decent.

As for their current offerings... :(

[Peter Pirate]

The merits of Pearl Harbor aside (and we won't even debate the profitability), but Bob, did you see how much PH grossed? How many people do you think saw it to have brought in all of that moula? The fact that it was an artistic failure or was too expensive don't mean diddly as you were talking about movies that people actually want to see, and Bob I'd have to say Pearl Harbor certainly fits that criteria...In spades, and that was a Disney film...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

Alot of people also went to see the new Planet of the Apes when released but few think of it as a classic as nobody thinks of pearl harbor as a classic while Saving Private Ryan is considered by many to be classic material and a wonderfully done movie!!!
And of course we cant debate profitability as it wasnt that profitable!!
And what synergies are we seeing from pearl harbor???? A little update on their special effects ride isnt much. of course if the movie had made titanic type money like it could have if done good with all the hype put out by ALL of disney's pr machine you would you have disney do more with the film.
And for less money than pearl harbor cost look what spiderman did at the box office. It didnt cost 200 million yet made tha much in 10 days. For 200 million in costs disney didnt get the bang for their buck.
And DVC you are probably right, a disney Lord of the Rings wouldnt have been as good as the movie we received which i thought was excellant!!

[Peter Pirate]

But the question is Bob, was PH a movie people wanted to see? Quite obviously the answer is yes. Therefore Disney is still capable of making movies thatpeople want to see (remember you said they weren't)...

:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[lrodk]

I don't remember this being discussed here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. In Jim Hill's latest Eye Drive column he states that Disney turned down Peter Jackson's epic film the Lord of the Rings. In other words, Disney could have had all three installments(costing $300 million combined) if Disney's executives hadn't been so casual in their interest.? We all know that AOL Time Warner went on to fund these films, which have been virtually paid for by the box office receipts of first installment alone, despite the fact that it has yet to be realize it's video/dvd windfall. Disney would have had a virtual gold mine on their hands. A major blunder to say the least, but I guess I shouldn't be all that surprised in retrospect.

[Another Voice]

‘The Lord of the Rings’ WAS a Disney movie through Miramax. Peter Jackson, the director, spent about three years and thirty million Disney Dollars developing the every aspect of the movie. He wanted to do three films; Miramax wanted to do two films (for the entire trilogy). They argued and settled for two movies. Harvey went to Eisner – Eisner said one movie. One cheap movie.

Mr. Jackson isn’t an idiot and struck a deal with Miramax to sell the rights to New Line if Warner Brothers would reimburse Disney for costs incurred. It’s estimated that ‘The Fellowship of The Ring’ will gross ONE BILLION DOLLARS worldwide in box office and video sales BEFORE the next movie is released. There are some estimates that the entire trilogy will top five to six billion this decade.

Wasn’t it a great business move to put all that money into ‘Bubble Boy’ instead?

P.S. – We can also talk about how Disney spent over a decade and $40 million on ‘John Carter on Mars’ which just went over to Warner Brothers to become a big time summer movie for 2004. Or all about the ‘Black Hawk Down’ saga. Disney’s been trying to come with the big summer movie and they have all been utter disasters.

P.S.S. - It actually turns out that people didn't want to see 'Pearl Habor'. The rapid fall off and very weak video sales for 'Pearl' show the public's true indifference to the film. At the theater, they got sucked in by the hype just like 'Planet of the Apes', 'Tomb Raider' and 'Mummy Returns'. And those three made more money than 'Pearl' did.

[Peter Pirate]

Come on Voice...People did go see PH...In droves. So what if it was the hype that brought them in, so what if they didn't repeat, but realistically how many ever repeat with this type & length of movie (I know, I know Titanic). The fact is and I can't see this being disputed, is that world wide LOTS and LOTS of people CHOSE to see Pearl Harbor, a movie made by Disney.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[PKS44]

Eisner predicted that PH would be a huge hit to rival Titanic, that should not be the concern of filmmakers...I think AV's earlier post sums up the attitude in Hollywood- "How can we make a money-maker" instead of "How do we make a good movie." In virtually every business that has ever really suceeded on a very high level, from retail to show business- the incredible, huge successes come out of passion to do something well, not profitably...profitability is not the end, it is a by-product of good work. I am not saying profits are bad-they are great-but chasing profits is less likely to produce them than chasing quality...I believe a guy named Walt Disney said something along these lines, "Make it high quality, the people will come."

Paul

[Another Voice]

Exactly Mr. PKS44

Disney has a very bad reputation surrounding all of its big summer movies, a reputation that goes all the way back to the days of ‘Dick Tracy’ and ‘The Rocketteer’. It’s the same exact problem that happened to ‘Pearl Harbor’ & ‘Atlantis’ and is happening to the ride movies. It’s a horrible chain of events that starts at the high level of the company:

All of the effort goes into the toys and none go into the movie. The film itself becomes just a commercial for all of the other stuff Disney thinks it can sell. Instead of focusing on developing a good script for the movie, the suits focus on finding the right ad campaign. They focus on the burger meal tie-ins, the ABC special and the plush. The movie is forgotten and left to fend for itself.

‘Pearl’ was a rotten movie that the public rejected very quickly. Sure, a few of them were hoodwinked into seeing the movie – but Disney lost the scam game to films like ‘Tomb Raider’ and ‘Mummy’. Once the public knew they were duped, the film plunged at the box office and people didn’t buy the video (notice the delay in the special “Director’s Cut” DVD). Cable sales will be for a much lower level, syndication will be lower, there’s no chance for a re-release and absolutely no chance for a sequel. Yea, some people showed up to buy tickets early, but the back end is a mess. Disney blew not only the movie, but the franchise surrounding the movie as well.

And now it looks like the same thing is happening to the ride films. Instead of great little fun movies – we’re getting bloated commercials for Happy Meals.

[airlarry!]

Aarrrggh!!

How can some posters think that we in Car 3 are anti-Disney when you read those last two posts from Mssrs. AV and PKS44? I may be speaking only for myself, but I *want* Disney to get those $5 or 6 billion dollars from the Jackson trilogy. I want them to make quality films that are 'surprise' box office hits. I want them to concentrate on one AND ONLY ONE animated film a year, develop it right, nurture it, market it, and then ADD to the parks with a mix of attractions based on these 'blockbusters' and original ideas. Being in Car 3 only means that I question whether or not present leadership can produce these results.

M. Landbaron, I just *know* there is an appropro Walt comment somewhere in your computer that would follow what they said about quality for the consumer.

[Peter Pirate]

'Pearl' was a rotton movie that the public rejected very quickly. Sure a few of them were hoodwinked into seeing the movie...

Voice! A few people? At last glance PH had made $450+ million bucks! Those "few" people must've paid a lot of money to visit the theatre.;) Any way you slice it PH drew a LOT of people. Further, at 450,000,000+ it actually must have made Disney a few bucks (and this is just theatre receipts)...

But to get back to an agreement. It will be heartbreaking to see another botched good idea such as the 'ride movies' concept. I agree wholeheartedly with you, Voice, with regard to the notion that movie makers should make movies & marketers should market movies. I also agree that very little (if any) input from marketing should even be allowed in the creative process. If Eisner doesn't learn this soon, I agree that the house of cards will continue to tumble.

My hope is still the hope of legacy. I don't believe Eisner wants to be know throughout history as the man who saved and then killed Disney. I do believe he wants to be revered, therefore very soon he will have to turn the Company around and perhaps the way to do this is to micromanage a little less, delegate a lot more and really (quite simply) concentrate on quality. Sounds simple to me.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Bob O]

Peter Pirate it was a movie people wanted to see, as my dad did being a ww2 vet. But after he saw it(i agree ) the hype was so much better than the movie and he wouldnt see it again. In contrast to well done war movies/shows like BlackHawk Down/Soliders/saving private ryan/Band of Brothers. The hype and disney marketing got people to do once but not the repeat viewings which make movies into blockbusters.
And i never saw TombRaider of the movies mentioned by AV but all the other movies he mentioned IMHO were better than Pearl Harbor!!!

And i wouldnt say Eisner is the man who saved disney!!!! Wells had as much to do and if you think about it Walt saved his company after his death!!!! he gave the company thru his foresight all the land to expand in FLA. and he gave them a great vault of movie properties that eisner(and he deserves credit for this) was able to turn into huge profits!!!! But the next CEO wont have the luxury of having a untaped vault of movies to re-sell on VHS and then later on DVD. And he wont have vast land to develop!!! Eisner does deserve credit for turning the company around and hiring guys like Katzenberg who re-engerized their animated film division(of course it went sout when he left) but without Walt giving him the tools and new technology with first VHS and then DVD to help him out the story may have been different!!

[Another Voice]

“a few people…?”

Yes is the evil influence of marketing upon the world these days.

On Eisner’s legacy – the scariest thing for me is that thinks he really IS creating a legacy. He truly believes he is doing a good job with things. In his mind, it’s the others around him that have failed. Witness how easily very senior level people are thrown out and how easily major projects are abandoned instead of fixed (the Disney Stores rehab anyone?).

I think it’s all a part of the micro-manager mentality. They feel they are surrounded by idiots and only they, the ones with The True Talent, can save the day. To go back to an old thread – doesn’t the CEO of an Dow Jones 25 company have better things to do than write dialog for a screenplay and pick out chairs for a hotel? Why does Mr. Eisner feel compelled to involve himself in these matters?

For a brief moment, it really looked like Disney Studio was starting to turn around. Very good, small movies like ‘Princess Diaries’, ‘The Rookie’ and ‘Lilo’ were a very refreshing change. And for a while it looked like the ride films were headed in that direction too. But it seems that once again Michael “Super Executive” Eisner is stepping in. What’s really funny is that Jeffrey Katzenberg warned about this exact same situation in his infamous ‘Dick Tracy’ memo years ago. They’ve learned nothing since then.

P.S. – New rumor. Would you believe “It’s a Small World” as a direct to video animated movie? Who’s in charge of gathering the pitchforks for us peasants?

[Bob O]

I dont have time to gather all the pitchforks but will be happy to be a member of the of the brigade!!!!

[DVC-Landbaron]

Your Air-ness!! Your wish is my command!!

The following (in no particular order) is offered as a small sampling into the mind of the original. How far from these concepts has the present regime gotten? Well, you be the judge!! I believe in being an innovator. We allow no geniuses around our studio.Reporters are always analyzing our approach to entertainment, but there’s no magic formula. I just make what I like – warm and human stories, and ones about historic characters and events, and about animals. If there’s a secret, I guess it’s that I never make pictures too childish, but always try to get in a little satire of adult foibles. Also, we do everything our own way, for ourselves, with no outside interference. We stay close to the fundamentals of family entertainment and recreation, and have complete voice in the marketing. Caution there must be, of course, along with venturesome courage. The motion picture business has long been a chance-taking business. This doesn’t mean timidity in planning an operation. I have every confidence that so long as our film presentations toughen the mind and warm the heart with the best the motion-picture industry can offer in art and craftsmanship and genuine warmth, so long may we expect prosperous support and a long life. I am not influenced by the techniques or fashions of any other motion-picture company. Well, I think by this time my staff, my young group of executives, and everything else, are convinced that Walt is right. That quality will out. And so I think they’re going to stay with that policy because it’s proved that it’s a god business policy. Give the people everything you can give them. Anything that has a Disney name to it is something we feel responsible for. Whatever we accomplish is due to the combined effort. The organization must be with you or you don’t get it done… I my organization there is respect for every individual, and we all have a keen respect for the general public. I’ve never believed in doing sequels. I didn’t want to waste the time I have doing a sequel; I’d rather be using that time doing something new and different. It goes back to when they wanted me to do more pigs. You hate to repeat yourself. I don’t like to make sequels to my pictures. I like to take a new thing and develop something, a new concept.

Some food for thought. Any comments?


PS: After I wrote all this, I read that AV posted. In his post he said: Witness how easily very senior level people are thrown out…

To which Walt answers:No matter what the provocation I never fire a man who is honestly trying to deliver a job. Few worker who become established at the Disney Studio ever leaves voluntarily or otherwise, and many have been on the payroll all their working lives.