Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt What if Superstar Limo had been given the kind of attention and budget that Cars Land was given Tasha? Suppose Pirates had been conceived as a little lame dark ride about pirates built on the same scale and budget as Limo. What about BV Street? It's a big hit. I certainly isn't the draw that Cars Land is, but it also doesn't have a major E ticket as its centerpiece.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What if Superstar Limo had been given the kind of attention and budget that Cars Land was given Tasha?<< For starters, Regis Philbin could have been as tall as the MaliBoomer.
Originally Posted By xrayvision Regarding OZ in Disney parks, Disney's "Return to Oz" was once included as one of the miniature sets presented in the Storybook Canal Boat ride at Disneyland, California. And, of course, Disney Hollywood Studios has the MGM version of OZ represented in the Great Movie Ride. In the Great Movie Ride, OZ has two show scenes, with one of the scenes being the biggest set with the most animatronic figures represented in the whole attraction. The munchkins' song number and the appearing wicked witch is the best part of the Great Movie Ride to me. Since Disney has now created two feature films based on OZ, including "Return to OZ" and "OZ-The Great and Powerful", and started to make an OZ film featuring the original Mouseketers when Walt was alive, I don't exactly understand why OZ would be considered to be any less Disney than any other classic children's book, stage play, or ballet that Disney has adapted for the big screen. Most classics now considered as "Disney classics" were already popular classics well before DIsney got the rights to present them in film under the Disney banner. We all know that Grimm's Fairytales were very popular, and had been featured in stage and film format before Disney presented them. Disney's Peter Pan the movie was based on the success of Peter Pan the stage play (non Disney). Disney's Sleeping Beauty was based on the popular, classic Tchaikovsky ballet presentation of the Sleeping Beauty story. Alice in Wonderland was of course a very popular children's novel by Lewis Carroll before Disney adapted it for its animated film. Brer Rabbit stories were popular before Disney's adaption....etc..etc. So, why should Disney films based on OZ be considered as being less Disney than other Disney film that is based on classic books/plays not created by Disney?
Originally Posted By leemac <<All I can say that I'm glad Disney went through with Cars land and didn't take a gamble to make original crappy attractions like Superstar Limo. >> Come on - RSR cost TWELVE times what was spent on SuperStar Limo. Limo was a poor idea that was poorly executed but that doesn't mean that the company hasn't created better original attractions than that. Mystic Manor and even Runaway Mine Cars at HKDL are better and more entertaining attractions than the Cliffs Note attraction that was dumped into Cars Land to the tune of $350m.
Originally Posted By leemac <<So, why should Disney films based on OZ be considered as being less Disney than other Disney film that is based on classic books/plays not created by Disney?>> Good point - although I'd argue that the Oz stuff is a lot more literal in the Disney live action stuff than any of the animated material which was a lot more interpretative. I struggle to see anything original in either of the two disney Oz movies (and like most people I truly disliked Return to Oz).
Originally Posted By mawnck >>the best part of the Great Movie Ride to me<< Damning with faint praise ... >>So, why should Disney films based on OZ be considered as being less Disney than other Disney film<< Because MGM. Disney did the definitive movie version of those other stories. In the case of Oz, that ship sailed in 1939.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "For starters, Regis Philbin could have been as tall as the MaliBoomer." LOL
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt >>What if Superstar Limo had been given the kind of attention and budget that Cars Land was given Tasha?<< "For starters, Regis Philbin could have been as tall as the MaliBoomer." LOL! "Bingo!!" +1 "Mystic Manor and even Runaway Mine Cars at HKDL are better and more entertaining attractions than the Cliffs Note attraction that was dumped into Cars Land to the tune of $350m." Perfect examples of stellar non-franchise based attractions.
Originally Posted By Captain Neo >> Star Wars and Oz aren't Disney!<< What?? of course Star Wars is Disney. It is CERTAINLY as much Disney as Cars is. Oz is public domain but when you consider how many public domain properties are used in the Disney parks worldwide (Pinochio, Snow White, Alice in Wonderland, etc.) and the fact that Disney actively tried to acquire the rights to Oz in the 30s and was constantly looking for ways to bring it to Disneyland it would be a fine fit. Not to mention there have been 2 Disney movies based on Oz with a 3rd on the way.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>of course Star Wars is Disney<< I vaguely remember this big thing that came on and said "20th Century Fox" at the beginning of it. On the sequels and prequels too. Maybe I just imagined it. And from a movie standpoint, Oz is MGM's, no matter how much you try to explain it away on minor technicalities, or how many terrible CGI sequels Disney burps out.
Originally Posted By kennect Lee, is there a one in a million chance there be will be a sequel to OZ the great and powerful? Would love to hear your opinion and insight.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "And from a movie standpoint, Oz is MGM's" This is definitely true for boomers, but I wonder how much interest younger generations had in the MGM classic growing up. I have a GenXer friend who thinks it's awful.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Sad but true. If you are over 35 and have no young children, you are no longer Disney's primary market. We have become today's "Grumpy Old Men", like it or not. Stay the hell off my lawn!!
Originally Posted By kennect thinking back on one film...it was sorta fun seeing Splash knowing it was from Disney. just one example of several films from that period.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "If you are over 35 and have no young children, you are no longer Disney's primary market." I wouldn't say that, but I do think that Disney could produce an appealing Oz expansion at DL that today's audiences would enjoy without worrying too much about the MGM film adaptation.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA It's interesting - I grew up watching 'Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella' on TV with Lesley Ann Warren. That was always 'the' version of 'Cinderella' in my mind. And yet, Disney's version of 'Cinderella' seems perfectly fine. She's considered to be part of the Disney family, she has a castle in The Magic Kingdom. And yet, 'Cinderella' is a story that can be traced back to Ancient Greece -- let alone the more popular French version.
Originally Posted By believe >>>>It's interesting - I grew up watching 'Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella' on TV with Lesley Ann Warren. That was always 'the' version of 'Cinderella' in my mind.<<<< Let's not forget that Disney remade that version in around 2000 (can't remember the exact year) as a TV movie with Brandy as Cinderella, and Whoopi Goldberg and Victor Garber as the Prince's parents, and Whitney Houston as the Fairy Godmother. It was pretty good and pretty groundbreaking.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Lee, is there a one in a million chance there be will be a sequel to OZ the great and powerful?>> I'd be shocked if a second Oz movie was made unless the studio find a way to produce a cheaper version. A $200m+ movie just won't find a sufficient audience to make money - that has been evidenced by the failure of the first one. I'm guessing that a sequel will go down the same route as Tron - they will work on a script to see if there is anything interesting that can be created. Tron Legacy was also a box office disaster but they continued to work through possibilities. However we are two and a half years on from Tron and nothing is happening. We hadn't been working on any Oz projects outside the US parks. Often once a movie tanks we get word that theme park projects for that property are off the table. Therefore I've not got much insight at all - just that it is incredibly rare for a failed movie to get a second opportunity. Particularly at Disney.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I have a GenXer friend who thinks it's awful.>> I definitely wouldn't describe it as awful but it is definitely a heavily flawed movie IMHO. The AFI list has always surprised me as it is considerably weaker than the vast majority of movies around it: # MOVIE YEAR 1 CITIZEN KANE 1941 2 THE GODFATHER 1972 3 CASABLANCA 1942 4 RAGING BULL 1980 5 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN 1952 6 GONE WITH THE WIND 1939 7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA 1962 8 SCHINDLER'S LIST 1993 9 VERTIGO 1958 10 THE WIZARD OF OZ 1939 It boggles my mind that Oz is above far superior fare like Chinatown and On The Waterfront. But then Star Wars is at 13!
