Archive for November, 2009

Remake of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea gets red light from Disney execs

The Los Angeles Times is reporting this morning that Rich Ross, the new head of the Walt Disney Studios, has decided to pull the plug on a remake of Jules Verne’s 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.  The project was only a few months away from the start of shooting, and reportedly $10 million had already been spent on it, but Ross and perhaps Disney CEO Bob Iger as well, apparently have had second thoughts on the creative direction the film was taking.

According to people familiar with the situation, who were not authorized to speak publicly about it, Disney executives made the choice not to proceed based on concerns that parts of the movie were too dark, among other creative issues. One person with knowledge of the project said the studio intends later to restart development on the Jules Verne classic.

I am not one who normally gets excited by the idea of a remake.  I prefer something new and different, especially from Disney.  Also, the original 1954 Disney Classic 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, with James Mason doing an absolutely masterful job as Captain Nemo, is, in my opinion, the best live-action film Disney has ever produced.  So the idea of taking another swing at it is not something you would think I would get too excited about.  But for some reason I was very excited about it, so this comes as some bad news.

The Jules Verne story is one that I feel can benefit greatly from the incredible advancements in technology the motion picture business has experienced since 1954.  While I doubt anyone can repeat the performance of James Mason in that roll, I do think the story can be an eye-candy bonanza if done properly.  There is still a glimmer of hope that the project will once again get the green light and this delay was all for the betterment of the final product.  Fingers crossed!

So why are the changes at Space Mountain not so drastic?

Jason Garcia of the Orlando Sentinel, the man with the world’s greatest journalism job, writes this morning on the paper’s terrific website The Daily Disney about the changes we reported on yesterday over at the Magic Kingdom’s Space Mountain.  They report the details of the refurbishment rather extensively and also expand a bit on the idea we discussed yesterday that this project may have fallen somewhat short in the scope of changes anticipated by Disney fans.

Like I said yesterday, I am on the fence a bit about this one.  While I felt resources would be better spent in a down economy on problem areas at Walt Disney World and not on a perennial favorite like Space Mountain, after the work began I was perhaps hoping for more dramatic and exciting changes.  But as Garcia reports, big changes to Space Mountain, like the ones completed in Disneyland’s version of the ride, just may not be the way things are done at Walt Disney World.

At Disneyland, which caters heavily to its Southern California population, executives are more willing to take down a popular attraction for an extended stretch of time because so many of its guests make multiple visits each year.

But at Disney World, attendance is driven in large part by out-of-state and international guests, many of whom may visit the resort only once every three to five years. And so executives don’t want to risk souring their experience — and losing out on any future return trips — by having a marquee attraction out of commission.

“An attraction like Space Mountain is on everybody’s short list. It’s a big consideration to have it up and running,” said Alex Wright, a senior show designer with Walt Disney Imagineering and creative director of the Magic Kingdom’s Space Mountain rehab.

Quite frankly, this sounds like a little Disney damage control, and that the folks at WDW may feel as though I am not the only one who was hoping for a little more.  Sure, in some respects this rational is true.  Perhaps Disneyland guests are somewhat more open to having closures since they go back more often than the average Florida traveler, but that seems like such a silly reason to not change something if you think the end result is better. 

Honestly, I just am not buying this line.  So are we really expected to conclude that no Disney World E-Ticket will ever be drastically remade because guests might get cranky with the time it takes to complete the work?  That’s just nonsense.  Maybe this comes into play to some small degree, but I would imagine cost is a far greater influence on making this kind of decision than potentially disappointed guests.  I mean, Disney just went through a very busy summer without Space Mountain, and in recent years they did the same with the Haunted Mansion and Spaceship Earth.  It is somehow okay to disappoint those people who came for their once-every-five-years trip during a blistering summer, but a few more months to really wow the guests would be just too much for the Customer Relations folks to bear?  Please…

Soft Openings of Space Mountain brings positive reviews

After around a seventh month closure for refurbishment, it appears the shiny new Space Mountain had a few soft openings this weekend for testing by Magic Kingdom guests.  This much anticipated re-make should be the talk of the town for a few days as reviews begin to pop-up on the internet.

For those of you interested in getting the full scoop, along with a complete compliment of spoilers, check out the blog section Ricky Brigante’s Orlando Attractions Magazine.  He has posted photos and full descriptions of the new queue area, loading sections and post show, as well as a first-person video ride-through.

Once you reach the top of the hill and begin the ride, it’s the same Space Mountain you remember, but darker. Projections along the ceiling and walls are crisp and brighter but are mainly the same swirling cosmos and shooting stars - nothing new. Throughout the ride, the track is practically invisible due to the lowered light level, presumably as a result of enclosing the load areas. I didn’t notice any difference in the track itself. The layout was the same as I remembered and it was no more or less shaky than before the refurbishment. Some have reported that the ride is a little smoother now. I didn’t think so, but I have a high tolerance for rocky rides. The near-total darkness did enhance the thrill level a bit.

The general consensus from Brigante, as well as others I have read, is that Disney has made this classic ride a little less antiquated but not much different.  Those of us in love with Space Mountain will not be disappointed by a totally new look and feel.  Much like the recent Haunted Mansion plussing, this seems to be nothing more than an updating or refreshing. 

Honestly, I am not sure how I feel about that.  While I was one who questioned the need to do much and invest a lot of money into this incredibly popular and iconic attraction, I guess now that we have waited seven months I feel like perhaps I was expecting more.  But I will reserve judgment until I have experienced it myself.  All the reviews I have seen so far have been positive, so this appears to be a job well done by the Imagineers.

Disney’s A Christmas Carol takes its place alongside the great film adaptations of the Dickens classic

This week I had the opportunity to see Disney’s A Christmas Carol, the new Robert Zemecki’s film shot in the same “performance-capture” animation used in The Polar Express.  The hype surrounding the film’s release is pretty typical of the Disney marketing machine, and it often leads to expectation that can be nearly impossible to measure up to.  But in this adaptation of the timeless Charles Dickens classic, Disney and Zemeckis have come pretty close.

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

First, let me give you a little full-disclosure.  I am a certified fanatic of “A Christmas Carol”.  It is, in my opinion, one of the best stories ever told in the history of English literature.  Every December, I make it a point to watch just about every version I can squeeze into the holiday season.  So when it comes to sitting down for a new take, either on television, the stage or the big screen, it is more than likely that I would tend to see it through a different lens then those who view it as simply a quaint little yarn told for Christmas. 

When I heard that Disney, Zemeckis and Jim Carrey were teaming up to produce this latest version, I truly expected a watered down borderline kids film made accessible for those who may not otherwise find yet another Scrooge movie all that exciting a proposition.  But that is not what we get at all in Disney’s A Christmas Carol.  Instead we are presented with a film that holds firmly to the greatness of Charles Dickens while offering enough visual eye-candy to keep anyone interested, something many previous versions have failed miserably at.

The Ebenezer Scrooge found in the pages of the written story is one of exaggerated features, emotions and words.  Dickens describes him as a “tight-fisted hand at the grind- stone, Scrooge! a squeezing, wrenching, grasping, scraping, clutching, covetous, old sinner!  Hard and sharp as flint, from which no steel had ever struck out generous fire; secret, and self-contained, and solitary as an oyster.  The cold within him froze his old features, nipped his pointed nose, shriveled his cheek, stiffened his gait; made his eyes red, his thin lips blue and spoke out shrewdly in his grating voice.  A frosty rime was on his head, and on his eyebrows, and his wiry chin.  He carried his own low temperature always about with him; he iced his office in the dogdays; and didn’t thaw it one degree at Christmas.” 

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

So you can see how old Ebenezer was tailored made for animation.  While some of Hollywood’s greatest actors have done wonders portraying Mr. Scrooge, this version is the first to take these words to heart and presents us with a character that seems almost too twisted to believe, exactly what Charles Dickens had in mind.

Much of the original dialogue is kept, as well as nearly every scene, and they fit perfectly into this multi-million dollar version.  But the important aspect of Dickens that is most often lost by Hollywood is his wonderful sense of fantasy.  If all you have ever known about “A Christmas Carol” is the standard screen adaptation, and have never read the original story in its entirety, then some of what Zemeckis offers may seem almost too outlandish to belong.  But Dickens devoted pages to turning a scene into an exaggerated fantasy, and this film plays on those ideas.  Technology has finally afforded us the chance to see this classic presented closer to the original story as ever before, and for the most part Disney and Zemeckis have done this. 

The visuals of this new animation technique can be absolutely brilliant.  The detail is often so well presented that one can easily wonder if the real-world is somehow being blended into the animation.  But at the same time, it never goes too far into realm of reality so as to make it less a fantasy.  Just when you think you are actually seeing an actor walking the streets of London, some character or some action brings you back into the world of animation.  The best example of this is in the contrast between Scrooge and Old Fezziwig.  While Ebenezer can be extremely life-like especially in the expression and details of his face, his old master looks almost like a Pixar-style cartoon character.  It is a strange contrast, not unlike the strange contrasts that Dickens himself employed, and it works on many levels for the story.

I have two basic problems with this film, which keeps it from standing alongside the really great versions adapted for film and television.  The first is the same problem that has scuttled many a version of A Christmas Carol, the lack of truly establishing Scrooge as a sympathetic human figure.  In order to truly appreciate the tale of redemption that makes it a classic, you must feel empathy towards Ebenezer fairly early on in the Ghost sequences.  The viewer needs to learn quickly that beneath the twisted body and mind of the old miser there is a struggling and pained person who has been beaten down by life and bad decisions.  But that never really happens here, or at least not to the degree needed to make it a standout adaptation.  We are rushed through his life, and almost distracted from these emotions by the power of the visual effects.  So even though the story’s conclusion leaves you with a warm and fuzzy feeling, it doesn’t have the powerful emotion that many other versions have managed to express.

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

copyright ImageMovers Digital/Walt Disney Pictures

The second is another common trap for films that rely so heavily on visuals, especially 3-D movies.  There are a few lengthy sequences in this film that were obviously shot for the purpose of enhancing the 3-D experience.  Scrooge blasts-off aboard the cap of the Ghost of Christmas Past and soars above London and into space.  Then later during the visitation of the Ghost of Christmas Yet To Come, Scrooge is chased by a horse-drawn hearse through the streets and eventually turns into the size of a rodent as the chase continues through the sewer and between the cobblestones.  Now, as I said before, I like the idea of playing on the Dickens way of exaggerating scenes into the realm of fantasy, but these sequences felt forced and not necessary to telling the story.  In years to come when people are watching this without the assistance of 3-D glasses they will be far less impressive and almost pointless.

Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that there is exists no prefect way to adapt “A Christmas Carol” for the stage or screen.  Only the words of Dickens himself have ever achieved perfection in portraying this story, so it is important to expect something in a new version that may not be just right.  But Disney has done remarkably well here.  They have taken one of the world’s best ever stories and adapted it for the modern audience without stripping it of the charm and prose that make it so special.  Disney’s A Christmas Carol is a film I would recommend to anyone.

Take a virtual ride on the AquaDuck

Last week, the Disney Cruise Line introduced its brand new ship the Disney Dream.  This crowned jewel of the fleet is now the most anticipated vessel in the cruise ship industry, and the most exciting element is the watercoaster AquaDuck.  DCL has released a virtual ride-through of this really amazing looking feature.  Click the link below and enjoy

Ride the AquaDuck- Disney Cruise Line

This vide was shown during the recent press event to a chorus of “oohs” and “aahs” and ended with a round of applause.  You can see why.

Not my idea of a fun Sunday afternoon

I am sure by now you have heard of Disney’s A Christmas Carol, the new version of the Charles Dickens’ classic that is set to be released later this week.  The film, which uses the same “performance capture” animation made famous in the Polar Express, is currently at the top of the priority list of Disney’s marketing machine. 

To spread the word and create a buzz about the film, Disney sent a train around the country filled with items from the making of the film and even from the Dickens Museum in London, to train stations throughout the nation.  All of this was free, and being a devoted fan of the Christmas Carol, I was all set to go this past Sunday.  I got up, made the two hour trek via car, ferry, and bus into Manhattan’s famed Grand Central Terminal where the train was making its final stop. 

With my camera in hand ready to shoot a full spread for Mouse Extra of this sure-to-be fascinating piece of Disney marketing, I followed the signs towards the tracks beneath the station.  As we approached the entrance we were told the wait time would be “at least two and a half hours”!!  Needless to say, spending what sounded more like three hours in the bowels of a nearly 140 year old train station was not my idea of fun.

Now, I could spend this time whining about how terrible a job Disney did with estimating crowds for this attraction, but I won’t bore you with that.  Instead, I apologize for not having the patience needed to bring images from this train to you.  Considering how things went, I can’t imagine many people got a chance to see it.

This website is in no way affiliated with the Walt Disney Corporation or any of its affiliates. This is a non-profit website designed to share the love of Disney.