Disney General - The saddest fandom on Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter KO 864
  • Start date Start date
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

Which is Better

  • Chicken Little

    Votes: 433 27.4%
  • Hunchback 2

    Votes: 57 3.6%
  • A slow death

    Votes: 1,088 68.9%

  • Total voters
    1,578
I dislike this on a visceral level:
View attachment 4725098
I know it's a movie, I know, but still.
>Directed by the same guy who made the 2015 Jem and the Holograms movie

This is going to suck isn't it....but at least it's a Disney + original so at least that's good. That means that the live action Little Mermaid is probably going to be the last Live action Disney movie in theatres. And seeing how the live action Pinnochio is a contender for worst picture for Razzies, I can see why Disney is not going to do anymore live action for movie theatres.

Also @ZMOT that's a Pixar film, which would never be in live action because Pixar films are hard to do live action remakes anyways.
 
Last edited:
I heard once that all these live-action films are a way of renewing the copyright/proving Disney is still "actively using" them for film and not just movies. Is there any truth to that idea?
 
I heard once that all these live-action films are a way of renewing the copyright/proving Disney is still "actively using" them for film and not just movies. Is there any truth to that idea?

That only happens in cases when a movie studio holds a license to create films based on someone else's intellectual property and have to produce a movie or let the license expire.

The most infamous example of such a case was Roger Corman's Fantastic Four (1992), a movie solely made to prevent the license that Constantine Films held from expiring and it shows. The movie was a low budget trainwreck that was never released and the only reason we know it exists is because someone made bootleg copies of it before the film reels were destroyed.

Disney is making live-action adaptations of animated movies that were already based on properties that are part of the Public Domain so there is no licensing to concern themselves with. This is why anybody can make a movie about Pinocchio and Disney can't do anything about it which is a blessing.

Disney is making these live-action rehashes because they are creatively bankrupt.
 
Last edited:
So I just came back to the movies with my girlfriend. During the previews they played the teaser. She was just as uninterested as me towards it. She also doesn't like how they made Ariel black. And mind you I have never mentioned my opinion about it until after she said that. I find it interesting because she's not into politics or cultural war stuff.

It makes me wonder if this movie will be the straw that breaks the Camel's back. Since it seems regular people who don't usually care about wokness or anti-SJWs aren't happy with this. It makes since Ariel has been a redhead and white for decades suddenly changing her appearance is just too big for a lot of people to get over as much as the corporations and the SJW cult want to believe otherwise.
We thought that about the Lion King "live-action" remake and it still made over a billion dollars.
 
I HATE THE ANTI-CHRIST
I HATE THE ANTI-CHRIST
I HATE THE ANTI-CHRIST

66F19387-E5A3-45C0-9326-8AEFA8C087E7.jpeg
 
I will never understand why some people, youtubers specially, are all doom and gloom whenever Disney is having a bad time. Like recently with Disney losing millions with the MCU and other shitty products.

How is that a bad thing?

If they make terrible products then they deserve to fail.

Unless you have stocks on Disney, this doesn't affect you whatsoever. They are a billion dollar corporation. Trust me their top shareholders and executives won't be starving any time soon.

If anything them succeeding with their woke shit would be the bad news. As it would encourage them to keep doing terrible movies and shows.

They don't deserve your support unless they make a quality product you like. It's that simple
You must understand the mindset of the Consoomer: they've invested their identity in corporate products and IP's. So Disney failing means that there is a risk that there will be fewer products to consoom from those IP's - that in fact, those IP's may be abandoned. It's basically FOMO but on an extremely unhealthy and pathological scale.
 
I heard once that all these live-action films are a way of renewing the copyright/proving Disney is still "actively using" them for film and not just movies. Is there any truth to that idea?

Copyright has an end date. Which keeps getting extended but that won't happen forever. When you adapt an IP, anything new you do has new copyright. With time running from its creation. Winnie the Pooh is out of copyright, but Disney's version isn't yet. As it was created more recently. Remaking and doing new versions of the Disney IP muddles the waters because there are always new additions. When the original Disney versions leave copyright, anyone wanting to do something based on that will have to ensure they don't do anything that came from a more recent Disney version of the IP. So it just complicates it.

While it's a long time since I read up about it, I believe Disney is going to be looking at trademarks as a way to protect its IP. Trademarks don't have an end date as long as they are being used. So various elements of the Disney versions, a word, name, phrase, symbol, design, sound, character, color, or color scheme can be trademarked as long as they are associated with a brand. I don't think this has been tested yet. I understand Mickey Mouse is considered so closely associated to Disney that when Steam Boat Willy comes out of copyright. Anyone using it won't be able to use the Mickey Character. As it would be seen as passing off as Disney. As the character and design is so closely associated to the brand Disney.

The issue comes to other characters not so closely associated to the brand. The attempt will be to have the Disney brand of the IPs. They will show that they are constantly using their trade mark elements. Which will protect the uniquely Disney version.

So once the copyright for Disney's Aladdin expires. Someone can use it, but they won't be able to use the trademarked aspects of Disney's version. It can't be made in a way where it is mistaken for Disney's version.

This is what I understand the idea of protecting their IP to be. I could be a bit wrong, things could have happened in the years since I learnt about this stuff.

They key thing with trademarks are you have to keep using them.

For people like me that live in shit hole countries. Ever notice how brands that don't operate in your country often have pop up stores or events? It's so they can claim they are using their brands trademarks in the country. So no one can take their trade marks, for the day they may one day decide to start operating in the country.
 
Last edited:
The Ariel on the left is optimistically looking up to a star and moon lighted night while the Ariel on the right is looking down on this cloud cover day with her body poster is also much more melancholic.
>making the black Ariel's poster more depressing and gloomy
I literally could not have written a better joke. Holy shit, if this is how they treat The Little Mermaid, I fucking dread Lilo & Stitch.
 
You must understand the mindset of the Consoomer: they've invested their identity in corporate products and IP's. So Disney failing means that there is a risk that there will be fewer products to consoom from those IP's - that in fact, those IP's may be abandoned. It's basically FOMO but on an extremely unhealthy and pathological scale.
I mean, how long can a big company fall down before they realize they might need to change?
 
The Haunted Mansion has always been a mismanaged ip.

How Disney hasnt done a Haunted Mansion hotel at Disney World is beyond me.
Believe it or not, they had an idea actually kind of like that.

The Tower of Terror ride started life as an actual hotel styled after old Hollywood, with the idea of "clues" to a murder mystery scattered around the hotel grounds that if a guest solved they'd get a prize, that evolved into "what if a hotel had a ride?" and there would have been a seemingly decayed, abandoned part of the hotel that if you went to you could ride a haunted elevator ride.

Then they realized the noise would probably disturb guests just trying to sleep, so it became just a standalone ride with no hotel.

As for a Haunted Mansion hotel, they have a Victorian hotel, the Grand Floridian, but it is neither dark nor spooky, an actual Haunted Mansion hotel would be really, really cool.
 
No matter how cool the idea can be, seeing how Disney catastrophically mismanaged their Star Wars themed hotels, it is for the best they stick to running hotels without any gimmicks.
They never had a star wars hotel.

They had a larp that cost a few thousand dollars. But unlike actual larps had no filtering mechanisms to prevent people not willing to help sell the experience and roleplay attend, zero flexibility in the plot, and no changing/different storylines to make people want to come back and get them addicted.

At no point have they had a Star Wars hotel you could book a otherwise normal Disney trip in.
 
Last edited:
At no point have they had a Star Wars hotel you could book a otherwise normal Disney trip in.

It's so dumb.

While I'm sure some could say it would "cheapen" the brand, it wouldn't do the damage that has been done. Open a large resort at Disneyworld with different themed areas based on planets. Fairly normal hotel rooms, but the buildings and areas are themed. Have life size X-wings and other stuff around the resort. Be fun. Have the pool or multiple pools with different themes.

Cater to different price levels. Have a luxury area based on Naboo. Have a tower that looks like it's from Coruscant. Have a wild west area like Tatooine. Have themed restaurants people from in and outside the resort can eat at. Have meet and greets with characters of all eras. You could do something interesting and fun that people would come back to.

Honestly, would there be a single repeat customer to the Star Cruiser?
 
Back
Top Bottom