Disneyfied

Bye-Bye Mermaid!

Laura — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:00:29 +0000

After two years on Broadway, Disney’s Broadway rendition of The Little Mermaid is, um, skating off broadway, heelies, butt-tails and all. While sales haven’t slowed yet, Disney is closing the show down to try to avoid the slowdown that their shows usually experience coming into September – after everyone goes back to school, but before the holiday vacations. Considering TLM hasn’t yet hit the two year mark (and won’t, thanks to its August 30 closing night), this makes it the second shortest running Disney musical so far. Tarzan comes in at the shortest run (and rightfully so) at only fifteen months.

I can’t say this comes as a terrible surprise to me. I’ve been pretty much waiting for Disney to close the show since it opened. The music is trite and the staging, while creative, leaves much to be desired. Disney is playing the odds, trying to strike gold again with another long running show (Beauty and the Beast ran for thirteen years, and The Lion King has been running for almost twelve), and this time it failed to pan out for them.

With all the schlock that started on Broadway this past season, the only way I can see for shows to go is up, and if Disney can find something truly interesting and possibly inventive, then I could see opportunity for another long-running show to put down its roots in the coming season or two. As of right now, however, there appear to be some… interesting possibilities in the works, including a High School Musical stage adaptation, and versions of Newsies and Peter and the Star-Catchers. (The Addams Family is also a possibility for the theater.) If it must be one of those, I would be most interested in seeing a stage version of Newsies, but given that I was a downright fangirl for the 1992 movie musical, that only makes sense. I guess we’ll find out soon enough what Disney decides to put into that space. Hopefully The Little Mermaid‘s replacement will fare better.

[Source]

A Main Street Proposal

Laura — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:53:52 +0000

Many of us grew up with the traditional Disney movies, wherein people (and animals) started to sing and dance in perfect coordination without any apparent pre-rehearsal (as far as the ‘audience’ is concerned, anyway). Apparently, a young man decided to propose to his girlfriend on Main Street at Disneyland, which seems mundane at first, but quickly moves into the realm of the near impossible as he and ‘random people’ around him begin to sing and dance, miraculously all to the same tune! There is speculation (though no real confirmation) that this was staged and that the couple in question did not actually get engaged in this manner, but that’s no real matter. The video had me in absolute tears from laughter, and though I’m sure that wasn’t the intended reaction, I can’t help but share it. Enjoy!

Read a more in-depth analysis of the video here if you’re interested.

Monorail Crash at The World

Laura — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:08:09 +0000

Sunday was a sad day at Walt Disney World. In the early hours of the morning, Disney experienced its first fatal monorail related accident when two monorails collided, killing one driver.

Almost everyone who visits the parks rides the monorail at one time or another, so I could certainly see this causing a panic, and it seems that Disney was expecting that – the monorails are closed right now and Disney is pushing their transportation alternatives. (Not to mention there must be some repair to do to the line and the trains.)

This is a sad, sad event. Most guests, myself included, travel to Disney under the assumption that the methods of transportation are safe, and until this event, the monorail’s record has remained unscathed as far as accidents go. Probably the worst in all of this is the grief that will envelop the family of that young driver whose life was so abruptly ended that night.

I’ll probably still ride the monorail when we go to Disney in a couple of months. Still, I imagine that the monorail could possibly experience a decline in ridership over the next few months in the aftermath of the tragedy. That, or people will flock to it in solidarity. It’s difficult to say how the general public will react.

Either way, I’m pretty sure this wasn’t the kind of publicity Disney was looking for during an economic slowdown. We’ll see how they’re able to spin this in the coming weeks to salvage attendance heading into the value season at the parks.

Further Reading:

Up: The Aftermath

Laura — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:51:09 +0000

Where Wall•E fans were prompted to feel defensive of their love of the personality-filled robot and his Apple-like companion, fans of Up are in good company. Since its release on May 26, Up has received almost exclusively positive reviews. RottenTomatoes (RT) lists only a few rotten reviews on their site, so Up achieves a 98% fresh rating. In fact, RT’s consensus on the movie is that it’s “Another masterful work of art from Pixar, Up is an exciting, hilarious, and heartfelt adventure impeccably crafted and told with wit and depth.”

I fully admit that I feel like a bit of a fangirl finding such a positive reception to a movie that comes from one of my favorite places. Up’s commercial appeal has been under scrutiny since before its release even at Cannes, but I think the movie, for what it is, will do just fine. There may not be as many tie-in toys as there would be for a movie like, say, Toy Story (1, 2, or 3), but it is clearly going to sell well on DVD. Pixar only has to find a way to harness the commercial appeal of its characters (and I could think of a few ways that they could if they really needed to), and it’s got a good baseline for this film.

Also telling for Up‘s success is its box office numbers so far. The movie has been out for just over one week, and it has grossed over 93 million dollars so far. Its opening weekend (68 million) ranks as the third largest for all ten Pixar films (The Incredibles had the biggest at 70.4 million on opening weekend, and Finding Nemo had 70.2 million). It’s currently over halfway to overtaking Pixar’s lowest grossing film (A Bug’s Life) in the rankings for highest grossing Pixar film. Will it get that title? I don’t know. But as far as appeal goes, Pixar’s got a smash hit on its hands with this one, and I, for one, would love to see Up ascend to new heights of box office gold for Pixar. (Hah, see what I did there?)

I’ve seen Up three times so far – once on opening day, once at a Drive-In coupled with another film, and once in 3-D. It held up to three watches outstandingly, and while I’m done seeing it in the theaters, I can’t wait to see it again. Now, it’s just a matter of waiting for DVD release. (Le’ts hope this one isn’t a fiasco like Wall•E”s release was!)

Sources:

RottenTomatoes
Box Office Mojo [1] [2]

UP!

Laura — Sat, 30 May 2009 03:14:22 +0000

Opening day for a movie branded a “children’s film” by our culture is quite a sight to behold. There were lots of kids with not near as many parents, a couple of toddlers and at least one baby (who cried in the middle of the movie but wasn’t taken outside). We settled in and crossed our fingers that the noise would subside after the film actually started. I fully expected the kids to be the problem, but a group of teenagers turned out to be the problem initially. They were loud, giggly and boisterous, which is fine at a dance or even outside, but at a movie is totally inappropriate. Johnathan shushed them, someone in the row behind us did, too, and it took a threat to have them kicked out just as the movie was starting to get them to quiet down.

The initial noise issues aside, I was getting pretty excited about the movie. The short was sweet and well-animated, as all of Pixar’s pre-movie shorts have been to date. There’s not much to say about it, other than that I enjoyed it. I wasn’t able to fully immerse myself as I wanted to do, thanks to the noise coming from people all around. Nobody in that theater seemed to have the same interest in the short as we did. But after the noise died down and the lights fully dimmed, we were ready to fully take in Up for the first time. (Spoilers, coming your way!)

The first ten minutes of the movie were spent establishing what the trailers neglected to even hint at: the backstory and motive for the whole movie. We learn about adventurer Charles Munz, who finds a mysterious and exotic land called Paradise Falls (otherwise known as South America – Venezuela in particular), and about his rise to fame and subsequent downfall as the scientific community calls him a fraud. A young Carl Fredrickson finds the excitement and adventure exciting and dreams of traveling to Paradise Falls himself. He travels past a house (presumably on his way home), and happens upon a ramshackle old house, in which a young girl (Ellie) with the same aspirations is playing that she is traveling herself to the same exotic location. The story goes into a montage after that, through the lives of Carl and Ellie, starting with their marriage and culminating with her death. The adventuring dream is part of their life, but they never quite get to going on the grand adventures dreamed up in their childhood. And that’s where the meat of the movie starts.

As anyone who’s seen the trailer can probably piece together from here, he decides to lift his house with balloons (inspired by an unfortunate incident in which Carl hits a construction worker with his cane and is subsequently taken to court, then ends up being told to move to a retirement home), the not-a-boy-scout boy-scout child (Russell) ends up accidentally tagging along. The rest of the movie is a hijinks, where Russel and Carl end up completely out of their element, both with each other and with their surroundings.

Without giving away the rest of the movie, I can say that it’s hilarious and exciting, somewhat sinister in spots (as sinister as any Pixar film has really managed to get at this point, anyway), and completely heartwarming. It’s always lovely to see characters change and transform over the course of an hour and a half. I would say Pixar did it again. It’s not a run away smash hit in the way that some of the previous movies were.

Part of that problem may be caused by inadequate advertising. None of the trailers that I saw touched at all on the backstory or the motive for Carl’s need to elevate his home with balloons. As a result, we’re left with a lot of amusing moments plucked from the movies without any context whatsoever, a villain with a motive that we know nothing about who inexplicably wants to do something to or get something from our heroes, but we have no idea what. Honestly, thinking about it, I have no idea what would motivate anyone to see this film, other than an inherent love for Pixar and/or animated films. For once, I feel like Pixar has failed at successfully marketing their film in terms of getting a successful trailer out to the public. If Up does not do as well as some of their previous films, I don’t think it’s for lack of story or animation quality – those are both top-knotch as always, but for an inadequate trailer that just doesn’t do what a trailer is meant to do: get people into the theater to see that movie.

All in all, I enjoyed it. Pixar proves once again that they value story over eye candy and then they put the eye candy into the movie anyway. I will be going back to see it again, and I will definitely be seeing it in 3-D before it’s out of theaters. It’s a movie I can recommend with confidence.

The “Problem” with Pixar

Laura — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:30:07 +0000

Toy companies and Wall Street are all up in a tizzy right now over Pixar’s upcoming film Up. I’ve seen article after article down-talking the new film, which at first was receiving a lot of positive buzz. It has only been in the last few days that the real reason behind the turn toward the negative.

What’s sad is that it’s not the plot line that’s under attack, nor the artwork: it’s the commercial appeal. People on the internet are up in arms over Up‘s commercial appeal (or lack thereof). The money-obsessed sectors are calling the film “too artsy” and claiming that Disney-Pixar is essentially shooting itself in the foot by releasing a movie with no further commercial appeal outside of the movie theater and DVD sales.

Richard Greenfield of Pali Research downgraded Disney shares to sell last month, citing a poor outlook for “Up” as a reason. “We doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character,” he wrote, adding a complaint about the lack of a female lead.

So, the problem is initially claimed to be with the lack of “appealing main characters,” although this argument is quickly forgotten in favor of the more important one: it is not that Up looks like it will inherently be a bad movie, but that there won’t be much tie-in merchandise for stores to market and sell to easily-tempted children (and Pixar-philes).

I suppose I simply don’t follow the logic here. I may not be thinking of what’s best for the businesses when I’m considering this a very dour way to anticipate a movie, the potential for which is as yet undetermined since it doesn’t even come out until next month. Why aren’t we more concerned with the quality of the film itself? There are doubts expressed by some of the articles about whether Pixar can deliver yet another smash hit, but those come secondary; the primary concern is whether Disney will produce enough pointless themed merchandise to appease the toy stores who will probably just end up putting those same toys on clearance in six months time because nobody really can afford to buy them, given the way the economy’s been headed for the last year or more.

I wonder if anyone remembers what it’s like to see an animated feature come out without the need for action figures, stylized doll houses, replicas of items from the movie, seven different video games on every console imaginable and then, of course, the six different DVD versions. Is all of this really necessary? It keeps the coffers of the retail stores padded, but blind consumerism is not what we need right now.

What really seems to be going on is a battle between Disney’s commitment to minimize their product footprint and the mass consumerism that’s been prevalent for the last sixty-plus years. It will be refreshing to see that a movie will be enjoyed for itself, rather than for the gadget-y toys that are produced and mass marketed in the neighborhood Big Box Store.

I’m pleased to see that Bob Iger is defending Disney’s decision regarding the merchandising for this film. It may not have been Disney’s intent to say that they would produce fewer pointless products (instead they are focusing on reducing the emissions and waste associated with the production of those products), but I would love to see a decline in the amount of toys created for the films. They’re neat, for certain, but I don’t think they’re nearly as important as the original product: the movie. That’s what many of the people concerned about Pixar’s upcoming film seem to be forgetting.

The folks at Pixar have always first and foremost endeavored to create a great movie. The commercial appeal hasn’t been something that’s factored into it at any point along the way (though I doubt any company would pass up the opportunity for merchandising if it were purely profitable). I applaud Pixar for continuing to put the pursuit of great films before great profits. Disney-Pixar may be a company, but that doesn’t mean that there can’t be a focus on putting out a great product.

Sources:

Weekly Linkspam

Laura — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 14:42:01 +0000

Another week, another linkspam. Some interesting things came up this week. I’m assuming the Hannah Montana movie just came out because I know I got inundated by Miley Cyrus news. Anyway, here’s what’s happened this week that’s interesting.

Layoffs at Disney Parks

3-D Releases and Re-Releases

Disney Channel Stars (But Mostly Miley Cyrus)

Everything Else…

And that’s it linkspam-wise for this week!

Disney’s Environmental Goals

Laura — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:05:46 +0000

With the push to “go green” and minimize our impact on the environment, it’s no surprise that Disney has gotten on board with the “green” movement. Disney recently announced that the company plans to reduce electricity use as well as solid waste going to landfils down to their 2006 levels by 2013. According to Disney’s 2008 Corporate Responsibility Report, their plans are to eventually achieve zero waste.

I will say that Disney’s goals in this field are admirable. As such a big company with so much potential for environmental impact – from the rides down to the cups and plates given at the quick service restaurants in the parks, if Disney weren’t making any effort, I could see bad things coming in store for them. The written goals, however, are vague:

Zero net direct greenhouse gas emissions from fuels
Reduce indirect greenhouse gas emissions from electricity consumption
Zero waste
Net positive impact on ecosystems
Minimize water use
Minimize product footprint
Inform, empower and activate positive action for the environment

Their aims are big and admirable at their core, but how, in the last few months, has Disney showed a committment to this report? After all, despite the reported impact of their two cruise ships that were already in circulation, they added two more earlier this year. If zero waste is truly the goal, I’d say that zero increase in waste is a good place to start.

How about the “minimize product footprint” item? Does that mean that Disney’s going to cut back on the needless overproduction of their toys? Are we going to stop having yet another round of the “Princesses” in a different scenario and yet more outfits that never appeared in the films? Considering the $800 pen that they’re marketing through D23, I’d say that it’s another instance of increasing a footprint rather than decreasing it. I’m not suggesting that Disney stop producing their toys altogether – I had some Disney merchandise myself as a child, but that doesn’t mean that we need seven different versions of the same character to tempt children (who are somewhat less likely to be environmentally conscious as their adult counterparts anyway) into asking for another Ariel doll to go with the six that they already have.

Compare these contradictory things with Disney’s promise to plant a tree for every ticket sold for ‘Earth’ in its opening week, or their suggestions for making your vacations (especially to Walt Disney World) “green,” it’s hard to tell what the company is actually up to. I hope to see that Disney continues on this path toward economic responsibility and that this isn’t just an attempt at “greenwashing” to appease the environmentally conscious consumers.

Also: If Andrew Stanton was serious about Wall-E’s social commentary being unintended, I only have this to say: Your pants are on fire. The timing is just too coincidental to ignore.

Sources:

Disney, Kids and Saving Money

Laura — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:29:39 +0000

“Disney,” “kids,” and “saving money” don’t really seem to be things that go together… ever. Disney’s changing that up with a new attraction that they’re creating for Innoventions at Epcot. The new attraction will be sponsored by T. Rowe Price, an investments management company and will be called “The Great Piggy Bank Adventure.”

The premise of the attraction will be to teach kids the about “setting goals, saving and spending smartly, staying ahead of inflation, and diversifying investments.” The attraction has been in planning for three years, but I don’t think it could have come at a better time. With the financial sector in turmoil, prices going up and wages going down, it couldn’t be more important for kids (and their parents…) to learn the importance of responsible money management.

It opens in May (tentatively the 19th), so assuming all goes as planned, we’ll be able to check it out when we’re there in September. It’s a great idea. I’m glad to see that Disney’s aware that kids need to be told more than “You must have all toys that we produce ever!” in order to become responsible adults who aren’t drowning in debt.

Sources:

Weekly Linkspam

Laura — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:36:14 +0000

Another week, another linkspam. Lots seems to have happened this week. I’ve got a few things up my sleeves to write about, but I’m still coming off of a week of movies, and sleep is more important than writing about Disney. (Sorry, guys.) So, more links!

Disney & Hulu

Disney & YouTube

Walt Disney World Layoffs

Stoneheart

Everything Else…

That’s it for this week!