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.

 

[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 Rings

OH 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...

 

[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)...

 

[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.