The Average and Incapable Oz

Disney's "Oz the Great and Powerful" opened with a strong weekend, making upwards of $80 million. That's the important thing, really. Not if it was a quality film or if it stunk, not any of the politics behind it, just if it makes money. A quality film would indeed be a good thing, but a film that makes money is the best thing, or else we might not see any investment in the parks for a while.

As a Disney die-hard, hopefully you enjoyed some aspect of "Oz", because it's going to be around for a while (and it's probably going to be the thing in the parks they invest money in). Disney's strategy is to put tons of money into a select few films that it can then turn into brands and make gazillions off of in synergy, from rides, to toys, to sequels and more. They wanted to do that with "John Carter." It didn't work.

"Oz" didn't break the coveted $100 million mark, but it did have the "best release of 2013," as the headlines say (a title that fits into the category I like to call "the tallest midget awards").

As things go, that which is popular is rarely high in quality (Cars 2). Thus is the case with "Oz." You can feel the attempt to appeal to the masses at every turn with the movie trying to be many things at once. When you try to please everyone, you dissapoint all.

"Oz" has its moments. I audibly laughed just once, but that's pretty good, considering I'm jaded in that department. I saw it in IMAX 3D (so, anyone want to pitch in a couple bucks for my rent this month?), and thought paying the extra for 3D was worth it (not the "IMAX" though. They need to have universal standards on screen size). This movie actually used the 3D to both add depth and pop things out at you like spears and hats and such. Sometimes it was gimicky, but it overall wasn't too distracting.

James Franco, who plays the title chracter, does an OK job, but you can feel that his heart isn't into it. Rachel Weiz as Evanora is OK, until she tries to be dramatic about something, and it doesn't quite come off the right way. Mila Kunis as Theodora is great at the beginning, but then, something happens to her character, and her whole performance would seem corny even on a daytime soap. The witch that truly shines is Michelle Willams as Glinda the Good Witch, who immediately sees through Oz's shenanigans, yet keeps her faith in him. Her performance is engaging and she's pulls off being convincing and cute at the same time.

Just like in the original film adaptation of the L. Frank Baum novels, the characters that exist in Kansas also inhabit Oz. Glinda is the lost love of Oz from back home and Zach Braff, who plays Oz's under-loved assistant in Kansas, shows up as a flying monkey (sans fangs and bloodlust) in a bellhop uniform, whom Oz learns to love. He provides some comic relief by keeping Oz honest, and didn't bother me much. The other character that goes along the for the journey with Oz and appears in Kansas as a crippled girl who asks Oz to grant her the ability to walk, is the China Girl. She's cute enough for being a completely CG'ed character, but does little to advance the plot beside helping Oz to realize his faults.

The movie is no doubt gorgeous, but some odd casting decisions as well as an uneven script leaves one wanting. Disney put itself in a tough place in terms of critical acceptance, as its predecessor is one of the most beloved films. They did an OK job with this one, with its greatest weakness being uneveness. That's OK though, because they'll get the chance to make it better with the second, third, fourth, fifth and six itterations. Because "Cars 2" and "Pirates 4" were such critical darilings. Right...

Posted with Blogsy

Yay for DCA!

Disney California Adventure has FINALLY found its audience with the opening of Cars Land. Imagineers have given the park that magical Disney touch that it had been missing since Michael Eisner built it on the cheap back in 2001.


It's been open for around 20 days now, and I don't think a negative word has been written about it. People love it, and honestly, it's killing me that I haven't been yet, so all you boastful visitors, I've probably blocked you on Facebook at this point as a measure of self preservation. Yeah, I'm a little jealous.

I haven't been to the California parks since 2010, before I did the College Program in lovely Florida. Visiting DCA at that point, the re-imagining of Paradise Pier had been completed and World of Color was up and running. They'd already rid of the Eisner-ick that made the park so, well, boring.

Not so with Condor Flats and the Grizzly River Recreation Area, Those areas remain almost completely in tact, as they were from the dreadful Day One.

I've always thought that ripping out Grizzly River Run would do wonders for the park. A river rapid ride is so not Disney. Every Six Flags park has one. It's not unique, fun, or worth the five acres it takes up in the middle of the park.

It was, when the park opened, the icon of Disney California Adventure, the weenie, as Walt would have called it. But, much like the Fantasia hat over at DCA's sister park, Hollywood Studios (which covers up Grauman's, the original, and still superior, weenie), there is something that could be a much better icon. In DCA's case, it's the new Carthay Circle Theater, which stands higher than Sleeping Beauty's Castle across the concourse. With the need for something to print on merchandise to distinguish the park filled, there's no need for the uncreative, unimaginative mountain.

As techskip points out on MicheChat.com's web forum, Condor Flats is a land designed to represent the desert portions of California. And so is Cars Land. And Cars Land does it better, so why two lands representing basically the same California climate? Surely the imagineers have noticed the redundancy, and are planing on doing something about it.

The west side of the park can't be ignored now that the east side has gotten the brunt of the updates. The newly named "Hollywood Land" where "Who Want To Be A Millionaire" and the "Monsters Inc." dark ride (which should also be replaced by something that, at the very least, begs for multiple rides) is currently, also needs some attention.

But, when you look at the money Disney has been spending (A billion in California, a billion in Florida, a couple billion on cruise ships, a billion probably on Avatar land [Still have saying that]) you come to the conlcusion that they've spend a lot lately. They've come to that conclusion, too, and aren't going to make it a trend.

From the Orlando Sentinel: "We should be coming down substantially — substantially — in domestic spending," Disney Chief Financial Officer Jay Rasulo said during a recent presentation to stock analysts.

So, while all this would be fantastic, reports have come out that Disney may be putting some money into Disneyland's Tomorrowland. This news, with the news of the reduction in capital spending, all means that Disney California Adventure will probably look pretty similar to how it does today 10 years from now.

Or maybe, just maybe, Disney will realize what Walt always knew: being cheap puts you on the level of everybody else, and reinvesting money back into the parks, well, that gets you Cars Land.

Marvel Meets the Mouse

Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Cinderella. The Green Goblin. Funny as it may sound, these characters now inhabit the same world of fantasy.

It's been a lingering question, since Disney acquired Marvel in 2009, if these famous fantastical personalities would live harmoniously in Disney's own worlds of fantasy: their theme parks.

"The Avengerail"

Bob Iger, the CEO and supreme chancellor of Disney (now that he's chairman of the board, too), recently mentioned that the future will see Marvel characters walking around, posing for pictures in Disney's theme parks.

The superhero's first foray near the theme parks (not including merchandise) will pop up this spring as the TRONorail will be replaced with the Avengerail. It's a good move by Disney, as it will slowly introduce a presence of the new slew of characters to the Disney parks. It's also a great advertising gimmick, and keeps the older models of Walt Disney World's monorails looking fresh. 

It's the first small step towards integrating the two companies (that are now, technically one). When Iger announced that the characters would eventually be making their way into Disney parks, my reaction was one of "No Duh!" 

People will love seeing their favorite super heroes roaming around the parks, but Disney will have to work hard to separate itself from the much less classy Universal Studios that the Marvel Universe is still associated with. 

James Cameron tours Animal Kingdom 

They can't just put them anywhere. Hollywood Studios at the World and the Hollywood Pictures Backlot at California adventure seem like the only logical places to meet and greet with The Hulk and Iron Man. Though, once the idea seems a little more natural, who knows how we'll feel. 

The "Disney" brand has always branched a little from the actual Disney company in itstheme parks, and it's usually for the better. Who doesn't love Star Tours, Indiana Jones or the Terror of Terror? Soon, Avatar, which was distributed by 20th Century Fox, will have a significant presence in Animal Kingdom, and the American Idol experience is a prominent part of Hollywood Studios.

Disney knows how to seamlessly introduce things that weren't produced in-house to its theme parks. Introducing Marvel characters is a challenge Disney has yet to face, as their presence has previously been in a rival theme park, but it's one Disney is almost guaranteed to pass.