Escape from Tomorrowland - UNAUTHORIZED DISNEY MOVIE!

[Ego831]

I was wondering what people thought of a movie which was shot at DisneyWorld without the consent/approval of Disney.

They used hand held cameras to look like tourists while filming, had microphones on their body to get audio and kept scripts on their phones so when reading reviewing - they looked like they were just checking their messages.

It is a dystopic vision of Disney where Disney Princesses double as escorts for wealthy Asian visitors and a family vacation ends in the protagonist being arrested by Disney security, taken to a secret security center under Spaceship Earth and after being brainwashed by Disney security released only to see Spaceship Earth blown up and himself die in the Contemporary resort.

Here is a summary:

=======
Shortly after waking up on the last day of a family vacation at Walt Disney World in Florida, Jim White (Roy Abramsohn) gets a call from his boss, informing him that he has been laid off. He keeps the news to himself in order not to spoil the family's remaining time at the resort. While lounging at the swimming pool, he sees two French girls in their early teens jump in, and starts to develop an interest in them. After his son intentionally locks him out of the family's hotel room, he takes his daughter to the rides of the Magic Kingdom to spend time away from his nagging wife.

Their paths frequently cross that of the two French girls, whom Jim tries to keep up with. His son, working with a wheelchair-bound man, makes attempts on his life. The Disney characters and paraphernalia start to seem sinister and surreal, and White starts to have disturbing visions, such as the animatronic characters' faces changing and the Disney Princesses doubling as escorts for wealthy Asian businessmen visiting the park. He is not sure if what he sees is real, or if he is just having a breakdown.
=======

I wonder if Disney will/can take any legal action?

I wonder what type of interest (other than for the guerrilla filming techniques) will the film generate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Tomorrow

 

[BRERALEX]

The trailer is up at Aintitcool. As always watch the language over there. Seems interesting the way it was shot.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

I was wondering what people thought of a movie which was shot at DisneyWorld without the consent/approval of Disney.

They used hand held cameras to look like tourists while filming, had microphones on their body to get audio and kept scripts on their phones so when reading reviewing - they looked like they were just checking their messages.

It is a dystopic vision of Disney where Disney Princesses double as escorts for wealthy Asian visitors and a family vacation ends in the protagonist being arrested by Disney security, taken to a secret security center under Spaceship Earth and after being brainwashed by Disney security released only to see Spaceship Earth blown up and himself die in the Contemporary resort.

Here is a summary:

=======
Shortly after waking up on the last day of a family vacation at Walt Disney World in Florida, Jim White (Roy Abramsohn) gets a call from his boss, informing him that he has been laid off. He keeps the news to himself in order not to spoil the family's remaining time at the resort. While lounging at the swimming pool, he sees two French girls in their early teens jump in, and starts to develop an interest in them. After his son intentionally locks him out of the family's hotel room, he takes his daughter to the rides of the Magic Kingdom to spend time away from his nagging wife.

Their paths frequently cross that of the two French girls, whom Jim tries to keep up with. His son, working with a wheelchair-bound man, makes attempts on his life. The Disney characters and paraphernalia start to seem sinister and surreal, and White starts to have disturbing visions, such as the animatronic characters' faces changing and the Disney Princesses doubling as escorts for wealthy Asian businessmen visiting the park. He is not sure if what he sees is real, or if he is just having a breakdown.
=======

I wonder if Disney will/can take any legal action?

I wonder what type of interest (other than for the guerrilla filming techniques) will the film generate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Tomorrow

Typical of self proclaimed directors and producers that have no talent or skill. Who cannot develop your own ideas or movie plot and have to steal property rights of the talent at Disney. They used something wholesome great for families and try to make it evil and weird.

Pitiful really. A shame they couldn't come up with their own characters to fit a what is really a weak plot.

I hope Disney nails them to the wall!

AKK

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Director/screenwriter Randy Moore set a fictional story in a familiar setting that's integral to the story. In a way, it's really not different than films set in locations like Las Vegas or Miami that rely on the characteristics of those locations in some way. The big difference is the filmmaker's audacity in shooting scenes within Disney theme parks without permission (and without being noticed).

Apparently, Randy Moore has talent and skill. With six reviews at this time, the movie has achieved 83% on Rotten Tomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/escape_from_tomorrow_2013/

That's pretty good for a directorial debut. I wouldn't call him a "self proclaimed director." He successfully made a feature-length movie that was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and is now getting a limited theatrical release. That's more than most of us can say. And that makes him a real film director.

So far, Disney has chosen to ignore the move, which is probably the wisest course. Any legal action would give the movie many millions of dollars of free publicity. Ignoring the movie will mean that most people will probably never hear about it; it will probably only be shown to arthouse audiences in a few major cities.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Director/screenwriter Randy Moore set a fictional story in a familiar setting that's integral to the story. In a way, it's really not different than films set in locations like Las Vegas or Miami that rely on the characteristics of those locations in some way. The big difference is the filmmaker's audacity in shooting scenes within Disney theme parks without permission (and without being noticed).

Apparently, Randy Moore has talent and skill. With six reviews at this time, the movie has achieved 83% on Rotten Tomatoes: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/escape_from_tomorrow_2013/

That's pretty good for a directorial debut. I wouldn't call him a "self proclaimed director." He successfully made a feature-length movie that was shown at the Sundance Film Festival and is now getting a limited theatrical release. That's more than most of us can say. And that makes him a real film director.

So far, Disney has chosen to ignore the move, which is probably the wisest course. Any legal action would give the movie many millions of dollars of free publicity. Ignoring the movie will mean that most people will probably never hear about it; it will probably only be shown to arthouse audiences in a few major cities.

Hi there Horace!

I am objecting to his use of Disney, the wholesome and family characters, and tearing that down and making it weird and evil is nothing more the taking what he doesn't own, destroying it, knowing it will draw attention because of the Disney name. If he did that at 6 flags no one would be looking at it.

That leads to admitting he doesn't have the talent or ability to make his own story line or characters.

Not to mention if he tried that in a Las Vegas casino or other private property, he would be booted out fast and possibly locked up. This was not filmed on the public streets of any city.

If his story and screen play was so good, why didn't ask and/or pay to use WDW which is private property? Well the reason is easy, because Disney would not want there name destroyed to feed a no talents ego.

I do agree that the best thing Disney could likely do is let it dies away as the poor movie, only getting press because he stole the Disney name and property rights.

AKK

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Hi AKK (Tonka's Skipper),

I agree with some of what you wrote, but not with everything. Neither one of us have seen the movie, so we're both just reacting to what we've read. I've even tried to avoid reading much about the details of the movie beyond the basic premise, so you might know more about the movie than I do.

I think it's fascinating that a movie capable of being shown on the big screen can now be made "secretly" with tiny digital cameras and wireless communications. It hasn't been too long since location filming required bulky equipment and large crews.

Based on the reaction at Sundance and from reviewers, it seems Randy Moore has talent.

You object to the filmmaker besmirching Disney -- making Disney "weird and evil." Fair enough. But from what I read when the film was shown at Sundance, it's case of the disturbed protagonist imagining the strange visions, against the contrast of a place that's actually happy and safe.

If it shows at our local arthouse, I might see it.

Then again, I might just realize that anywhere I am, I could wind up in a feature film, or at least in a Youtube video.

 

[Postal68]

Typical of self proclaimed directors and producers that have no talent or skill. Who cannot develop your own ideas or movie plot and have to steal property rights of the talent at Disney. They used something wholesome great for families and try to make it evil and weird.

Pitiful really. A shame they couldn't come up with their own characters to fit a what is really a weak plot.

I hope Disney nails them to the wall!

AKK

you have serious issues

 

[bmwdw]

Here is my question. Couldn't Sundance Film Festival get into trouble for allowing this movie to be screened? I don't know much about the film festival and what is allowed or not allowed, but it seems to me, that they shouldn't be showing material that maybe infringing on a company's copyrights.

 

[Horace Horsecollar]

Here is my question. Couldn't Sundance Film Festival get into trouble for allowing this movie to be screened? I don't know much about the film festival and what is allowed or not allowed, but it seems to me, that they shouldn't be showing material that maybe infringing on a company's copyrights.

Disney does not have restrictions on camera use in its parks, except for specific attractions (such as Monster Inc Laugh Floor).

That being said, I doubt Disney really wants unauthorized theatrical movies shot in its parks.

Videos on YouTube, including videos made and posted by The DIS (a for-profit company) reveal far more copyrighted material than is likely to be seen in Escape From Tomorrow.

On a case-by-case basis, Disney can send its lawyers after copyright violators. The cost of doing so can be free publicity for the accused violator and bad publicity for Disney. Wisely, Disney chooses its battles carefully these days.

A bigger issue is whether the movies slanders Disney in some way. My guess (and I have NOT seen it) is that it does not. The "evil" seems to be in the mind of the protagonist, although I imagine the filmmaker blurs the distinction between what's real and what's imagined.

 

[rteetz]

The Dis did a section in last weeks show on this issue they had a lawyer on skype during the show and it answered a lot of their questions. Exactly stated previously video and pictures in theme parks like this and even if I went with my little video camera or my phone and took video and pictures thats no different than the film makers. Meaning disney can't stop you from doing that, there are certain exceptions like in universal they don't allow video on rides but outside the ride its free game. Buildings cannot be copyrighted unless they were built after the early 90s I believe and even that is not going to stop someone from taking pictures thats for people looking to create an exact replica of the building. Dustin from the DIS team a former CM even said if you see someone in the parks with large filming equipment there is no rule saying they can't do that. In Disneyland though its a little different large film equipment is not something they want in their. The dis team even said when they go with there Nikon or canon cameras that are big but not commercial they get stopped all the time and asked why they have that or what they are doing with it. I don't think disney can do much until the movie is released for profit even if they can do anything with that but for now we will have to wait and see.

 

[bmwdw]

Disney does not have restrictions on camera use in its parks, except for specific attractions (such as Monster Inc Laugh Floor).

That being said, I doubt Disney really wants unauthorized theatrical movies shot in its parks.

Videos on YouTube, including videos made and posted by The DIS (a for-profit company) reveal far more copyrighted material than is likely to be seen in Escape From Tomorrow.

On a case-by-case basis, Disney can send its lawyers after copyright violators. The cost of doing so can be free publicity for the accused violator and bad publicity for Disney. Wisely, Disney chooses its battles carefully these days.

A bigger issue is whether the movies slanders Disney in some way. My guess (and I have NOT seen it) is that it does not. The "evil" seems to be in the mind of the protagonist, although I imagine the filmmaker blurs the distinction between what's real and what's imagined.

Thank you for your reply. I had not considered that they may see this as slander. So far everyone had been speaking of how amazed they were that this could be done in secret in the parks while operating. So I was only considering what legal road that might send Disney down.

I was asking about Sundance being liable because I thought that the film festival may have profited from showing the film if they sold tickets. As stated I am not familiar with how the festival operates so that may not be the case.
As rteetz pointed out the copyright of the buildings was just covered by the DIS and I actually read that article. So perhaps the filmmaker was well within his rights to film; I was just questioning if Sundance or any other film festival had profited would you go after that entity instead of the filmmaker or both.

As far as slander is concerned I would think the ideals of giving someone artistic license would cover them but maybe not. I watched an interview on youtube with the actor of the main character and the director and I don't think they were going for slander but in court intent is sometimes lost.

Disney will probably just let it go. As they most likely should. But I was just wondering if the film festivals would be the ones that Disney may question or leave the blame solely on the filmmaker himself.

 

[Q-man]

But I was just wondering if the film festivals would be the ones that Disney may question or leave the blame solely on the filmmaker himself.

Even if Disney has a standing to pursue legal action it would be incredibly bad PR to go after the world's premier independent film festival over a director's work.

Also, if Disney does go down that road good luck finding any top Hollywood talent willing to participate in any Disney/Pixar/StarWars film(s).

 

[mvk]

Even if Disney has a standing to pursue legal action it would be incredibly bad PR to go after the world's premier independent film festival over a director's work.

Also, if Disney does go down that road good luck finding any top Hollywood talent willing to participate in any Disney/Pixar/StarWars film(s).

They will never have trouble finding top Hollywood talent to participate in their films.

They might get a little backlash for going after Sundance, but they won't have trouble getting actors/actresses to work. That said, they wouldn't go after Sundance, they'll go after the producer, if they choose to take action. My guess is this won't see close to enough theatres to even register on the map. It looks like a mess.

 

[Tonka's Skipper]

Hi AKK (Tonka's Skipper),

I agree with some of what you wrote, but not with everything. Neither one of us have seen the movie, so we're both just reacting to what we've read. I've even tried to avoid reading much about the details of the movie beyond the basic premise, so you might know more about the movie than I do.

I think it's fascinating that a movie capable of being shown on the big screen can now be made "secretly" with tiny digital cameras and wireless communications. It hasn't been too long since location filming required bulky equipment and large crews.

Based on the reaction at Sundance and from reviewers, it seems Randy Moore has talent.

You object to the filmmaker besmirching Disney -- making Disney "weird and evil." Fair enough. But from what I read when the film was shown at Sundance, it's case of the disturbed protagonist imagining the strange visions, against the contrast of a place that's actually happy and safe.

If it shows at our local arthouse, I might see it.

Then again, I might just realize that anywhere I am, I could wind up in a feature film, or at least in a Youtube video.

Morning, I think I need to back up a bit here Horace, you are right we have not actually seen the movie so whether the man is talented or not it is not fair of me to make a final opinion, so I *bow* to you point there!

I am one who find its very distasteful to take the Disney Brand and miss use it or degrade it to make their own movie or whatever. As I pointed out before, this was not done on a public street or area, it was done on private property or private trademarks and patents, so whether its done with new techno and small camera is not the point.

AKK

 

[FlightlessDuck]

If I remember correctly, the main character in this movie is a bit of a creeper. He fantasizes about two French girls while they are in a resort pool.

 

[Lewisc]

According to wikipedia the film avoided copyright violations. They didn't use the song from It's a Small World or any part of the movie from Soarin.

According to the law professors quoted use of Disney's IP is probably allowed under fair use.

A case might be made for violating the parks "term of use" but the quoted sources said that's a hard case to make.

I haven't seen the movie. It doesn't sound like it's slanderous.

I agree with HH. I find it fascinating a feature length movie can be shot "guerrilla style"

After the film was shown in Sundance Roger Ebert personally selected the film for showing at his festival.

I haven't seen the movie but people who've seen the movie seem to disagree with PP comments regarding the talent of the director.

 

[WDWChloe]

Just watched the first trailer that pops up on YouTube...


WHAT THE CRAP.

It actually looks interesting, especially the B&W... Kind of intriguing. Not what I was expecting after I read the original post, but I may give this one a try.


Oh, and I noticed that the first screen, "this film... Approved by the Walt Disney Company..." What does that mean?? It can't possibly be approved by them, are films actually allowed to falsely state this?

 

[Lewisc]

Oh, and I noticed that the first screen, "this film... Approved by the Walt Disney Company..." What does that mean?? It can't possibly be approved by them, are films actually allowed to falsely state this?

The version i saw on Youtube says "THE FOLLOWING MOTION PICTURE HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED...."

Either you missed the NOT or there are versions floating around with the first screen hacked.

edited to add a link to a New Yorker article where a law professor from Columbia shows why the film is probably allowable under fair use.



http://www.newyorker.com/online/blo...row-disney-world-and-the-law-of-fair-use.html

 

[BDL]

Here is a summary:

=======
Shortly after waking up on the last day of a family vacation at Walt Disney World in Florida, Jim White (Roy Abramsohn) gets a call from his boss, informing him that he has been laid off. He keeps the news to himself in order not to spoil the family's remaining time at the resort. While lounging at the swimming pool, he sees two French girls in their early teens jump in, and starts to develop an interest in them. After his son intentionally locks him out of the family's hotel room, he takes his daughter to the rides of the Magic Kingdom to spend time away from his nagging wife.

Their paths frequently cross that of the two French girls, whom Jim tries to keep up with. His son, working with a wheelchair-bound man, makes attempts on his life. The Disney characters and paraphernalia start to seem sinister and surreal, and White starts to have disturbing visions, such as the animatronic characters' faces changing and the Disney Princesses doubling as escorts for wealthy Asian businessmen visiting the park. He is not sure if what he sees is real, or if he is just having a breakdown.
=======

I wonder if Disney will/can take any legal action?

I wonder what type of interest (other than for the guerrilla filming techniques) will the film generate?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_Tomorrow

This synopsis sounds like the movie version of Kingdom Keepers, if it were written by Alan Moore and directed by Quentin Tarantino.

 

[TheMaxRebo]

From what I have read and think, there is some truth to iconic architectural structures being protected under "fair use" and thus perhaps Disney couldn't sue .... but I would think that there would be enough characters and drawings/art shown (that is not protected) that if Disney really wanted to go after them they could - but they would have the weigh the cost of that vs. waht they would gain vs. any negative press, etc.

I think that if it comes out that the movie paints the parks/Disney in a negative light (or that is the reaction to it) they will go after them - otherwise, why bother