Escape from Tomorrow

[Chic]

Has anyone read about the movie opening this Friday October 11 called "Escape from Tomorrow"? It is a horror film which was secretly made in both Disney World and Disneyland without permission from the Disney Company. Here is a link with the details. www.escapefromtomorrow.com

 

[Planogirl]

I'd like to see it but unfortunately it's not opening anywhere close to us. I'm really curious about it!

 

[Lewisc]

I'd like to see it but unfortunately it's not opening anywhere close to us. I'm really curious about it!

The movie will also be available video on demand same day.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

That is about as far as it is expected to go............its not being shown around here, at least as far I could find.

Since the legal issues are all opinion so far, we will have to see if Disney will let it die quietly or will take them to court.

AKK

 

[Chic]

The movie is actually playing in Raleigh NC this weekend and I plan to go see it. I'll post here with an update afterwards. I'm thinking it will only play for about a week before it fades away or is yanked off the market due to legal issues.

 

[csgsu]

anyone know where you can see it VOD

 

[Lewisc]

anyone know where you can see it VOD

iTune and Amazon. I'm not sure about netflix or cable vod.

They've added a lot more cities.

 

[ArielRae]

Comcast is also offering it VOD. Saw commercials for it on our on demand channel.

 

[Vidia2]

Has anyone read about the movie opening this Friday October 11 called "Escape from Tomorrow"? It is a horror film which was secretly made in both Disney World and Disneyland without permission from the Disney Company. Here is a link with the details. www.escapefromtomorrow.com

I watched it on Comcast. Not quite what to say about it as I don't want to give anything away. It was worth the $7.99 but would be disappointed if I had paid regular price + popcorn etc.

I can see why Disney might view it as a non-issue or at least not worth of making a big deal of. It doesn't portray the parks in a bad light. Anything that hints of weird character behavior etc. are obvious fakes - creepy princesses that are not wearing costumes that even remotely look authentic. Some other things, such as one scene inside Spaceship Earth which is obviously a fake set. Disney nurse is obviously not a Disney nurse.

The story is really about the family and WDW is just the backdrop. We see more of the parks on YouTube and travel bloggers' websites, which people are also profiting from.

The plot in no way blames WDW for the really bad couple of days that they have. So much of the crazy stuff is really the whackadoo dad having hallucinations.

The plot was mildly interesting but this was not worthy of any award that it won at Sundance unless they have really lowered their standards.

I kind of enjoyed the irony as so many of us know that you can get bad news at WDW that is really hard to not let get to you. Also people get sick on vacation. Run ins with scooters, check. Dad's noticing the inappropriately dressed hotties in the park? Not sure that ever happens. LOL This guy takes everything to the next level to say the least. Could be all part of his delirium though.

I loved hearing the monorail guy's voice and seeing some of the rides through everything was in black and white. It bothered me that scenes would cut from WDW to DL as if they think us fanatics would not be upset over that. The pool they used didn't look like any WDW pool I've ever seen. I guess they had to do the best they could.

Here's one tidbit: turkey legs are not really turkey. They're emu. Allegedly.

Sorry so long. There's so much buzz about this so I thought I'd post.

I can see it becoming some kind of cult classic among a certain crowd. ;-) I'll probably watch it again with my husband.

 

[Disneychix]

Just saw it on Fios for $6.99. THink I"ll check it out tonight!

 

[Shagley]

I just watched it tonight too. I like seeing all the Disney locations, but the plot was just bizarre! It also cracked me up how at the beginning they were obviously at Disneyland (you could see the matterhorn in the background) then they went to EPCOT. Plus, some of the "effect" were laughable, especially the scenes that were obviously filmed in front of a green screen rather than actually on location. It was interesting to watch, but I am glad I watched it On Demand from the comfort of my living room rather than paying more to see it at the theater. I am still not sure how they label it a "horror" film. It was dark, depressing and creepy, but there wasn't a lot to it that would make me label it a "horror" film.

 

[Shagley]

Here is a good article about why Disney probably won't bring a lawsuit against the makers of Escape from Tomorrow...
(I removed the spoilers from the quoted article, you can click the link to read the unedited article).

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...y-world-and-the-law-of-fair-use.html?mobify=0

“Escape from Tomorrow” is in many ways your typical low-budget indie film. It’s shot in black and white, the actors aren’t famous, and the plot is surreal. There is one thing, though, that makes “Escape” completely different. The entire film was surreptitiously shot inside of Disney World. With what can only be described as generous bravado, the director, Randy Moore, bought season tickets and secretly filmed his actors at the theme park.

New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other news organizations have speculated that “Escape from Tomorrow” must violate Disney’s rights and that its lawyers will seek to have the film enjoined. At the Sundance Film Festival, where the film premièred this week, Moore was onstage answering questions when someone in the audience asked, roughly, “Why did you put so much work into a film that violates so many laws?”

But the underlying assumption of that question—that Disney has a good trademark or copyright case—is wrong. Though the filmmakers may have committed trespass when they broke Disney World’s rules and if it violated the terms of entry on their tickets, the film itself is a different matter. As commentary on the social ideals of Disney World, it seems to clearly fall within a well-recognized category of fair use, and therefore probably will not be stopped by a court using copyright or trademark laws.

“Escape from Tomorrow” is, essentially, a commentary on a shared social phenomenon, namely the supposed bliss of an American family’s day at Disney World. In Moore’s version, the day is a frightening and surreal mess. The film isn’t so much a criticism of Disney World itself but of the unattainable family perfection promised by a day spent at the park.

It’s important to understand that Disney does not have some kind of general intellectual-property right in Disney World itself. It is not a problem to film the Magic Saucer ride. The case would depend on the appearance of Disney’s trademarks or copyrighted works in the background of the film, like when Goofy wanders by or when we see the waving robots in “It’s a Small World.” Filming these works without justification would be an infringement of the copyright law. The question is whether they are “fair use”—or in other words, whether technical infringements are negated because they are justified by public policy. If there were a fire in Times Square, TV-news teams would be free to film there despite all of the copyrighted billboards in the background, given the public’s interest in the reporting and the First Amendment’s protection of the press.

Under copyright law, commentary and parody are well-established fair-use categories, and this is where the film likely falls. It would be one thing if Moore merely used Disney World to embellish his film—to serve as a pleasing backdrop for some light romantic comedy. But his use of Disney World is not as simple window dressing; he transforms it into something gruesome and disturbing.

A fair-use finding also depends on the effect of the use on Disney’s market for its works. It might be a violation if Moore had made a film designed for viewers who wanted to see Disney World but were too lazy to go to Florida. “Escape from Tomorrow,” however, is clearly no substitute for buying a ticket. Meanwhile, with relevance to the trademark law, there is no real chance that anyone would plausibly think that the film was sponsored by or affiliated with Disney.

A famous case over the artist Thomas Forsythe’s “Food Chain Barbie” series is similar to this one. In the late nineteen-nineties, Forsythe created a line of artistic photographs of Barbie under attack by various vintage appliances. According to Forsythe, he wanted to “critique the objectification of women associated with [Barbie], and to lambast the conventional beauty myth and the societal acceptance of women as objects because this is what Barbie embodies.” His work made just thirty-seven hundred dollars, but Mattel sued for both copyright and trademark infringements. The courts threw out the complaints under a fair use and First Amendment rationale. The judges were so annoyed by the lawsuits that they awarded attorney’s fees of nearly two million dollars to the artist.

The similarities with “Food Chain Barbie” are obvious. Both make use of an American icon with associated social ideals (perfect womanhood, in Barbie’s case). Both use art to comment on or criticize that social meaning. In neither case is the commentary the only purpose of the art work, but it doesn’t need to be. Ultimately, both “Food Chain Barbie” and “Escape from the Future” are legitimate art projects, and it is a serious thing for judges to place prior restraints on cultural output. This is not a case about counterfeit Mickey Mouse watches or bootlegged “Toy Story” DVDs. Disney is free to stop that sort of thing all it likes. But a judge has to think about the First Amendment when asked to ban art work.

“Escape from Tomorrow” ultimately raises a larger question of what you might call cultural freedom, or the freedom to comment on or reimagine the great cultural icons of our time. It’s the same question raised by fan fiction and remix artists like Jeff Koons. Disney would surely have preferred that Moore and his team have asked for permission before making the film. But it seems unlikely to have been granted: and a world where Disney gets to determine everything said about Disney World would be a poor place indeed.