Originally Posted By believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This reminds me of something I read the other day, it was awhile back and Warner Bros was doing a test screening on their upcoming animated movie that was coming out, audience reaction to it was totally flat, they did another test screening on a new group of people, except this time at the beginning of the movie rather than put the Warner Bros logo up there, they put Disney's up, and the crowd went wild for the movie.<<<<<<<<<<<< That was a long time ago during the 2nd "Golden age" when Aladdin and Lion King first came out. 15+ years ago...
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance I don't understand why movie production companies like Disney, put out movies that are less than good. It tarnishes their good name, and gives people a negative feeling about all of their movies. They put out movie after movie like Air Bud and Space Buddies, then act surprised when people stay home and don't go see the next great movie in the theater. People aren't stupid.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby <<I don't understand why movie production companies like Disney, put out movies that are less than good.>> Many, many people told George Lucas that Star Wars was less than good. Should he have released it?
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance There is a huge difference between Air Bud and Star Wars, I doubt anyone thought that movie was actually good before being released.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Many, many people told George Lucas that Star Wars was less than good. Should he have released it?" Some of the Star Wars films ARE less than good and maybe should have at least been reworked before being released. With that said, CC is right; there's bad and then there's just downright horrible.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "The WDW demo was used to staying a week and park-hopping on 4-7 day hoppers already." When MGM opened, had they started park hopping yet? I have a 4-day ticket from the first year of MGM, and it has a date stamp on each line, without a way to really show anything about park hopping. It's not with me right now, so I can't read the fine print about how many parks are allowed in a day, but given that the park name was also stamped next to the date, I would think you have to stay where you are. Another advantage that WDW had that DL didn't was that there were other things to do after you finished your time in the park. Pleasure Island and DTD opened at the same time as MGM, so there was new Disney entertainment for the folks on property. The lakes had boats for rent, and there were the golf courses and River Country to fill in time. There also seems to have always been more of a laid back hotel atmosphere in WDW, so guests wouldn't mind just hanging around as much. Not sure about park hopping specifically, but the overall resort feel of WDW certainly helped, while DLR has always been a little lacking in that area.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I think there was park hopping back then. I believe that the multi-day multi-park tickets were called Passports and you could move freely from park to park.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance And all of the Cinderella 2s and Cinderella 3, and Little Mermaid 2 and 3, that go straight to video, I mean what a freakin waste. You could do an actual GOOD version of Cinderella 2 and 3, put it in the theater and make a billion dollars from it. But no, they choose to put it straight to video, make it impossible to sit through unless you're 5 years old, and give everyone the impression they now only make crap. Then when you make a GOOD movie, like The Princess and the Frog, no one bothers going to theater, probably partly because they think it's just more of the crap Disney spews forth for all the kids who don't know any better.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance ^^^I actually had that thought when I was writing it, lol, scary!
Originally Posted By tashajilek It's a shame that the princess frog didnt do so well. It was nice to see they are actually doing a show in NOS, hopefully people wont forget about the moie. I dont understand how Disney stamps their name on the most horrid films either.
Originally Posted By believe >>>>There is a huge difference between Air Bud and Star Wars<<<< AirBud 1, Airbud 3, and Airbud 5 were great. But Airbud 2 and Airbud 4 sucked.
Originally Posted By cheesybaby When the script is approved and production starts, everybody believes it will be a good movie. Everybody. When the movie is complete, even if 100% of the people involved believe it is a stinker, you have by then spent tens of millions of dollars on the project, even if it is a cheap direct-to-video sequel. You have a fiduciary responsibility to release it and earn as much money as you can for your shareholders. There is no art without risk. And sometimes risks do not pay off.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I dont understand how Disney stamps their name on the most horrid films either." $$$ Those direct to video and kiddie animated films like the Tinkerbell franchise are huge revenue generators.
Originally Posted By tashajilek "Those direct to video and kiddie animated films like the Tinkerbell franchise are huge revenue generators." yupp you are right
