It's Not A Disney Movie...

[hobie16]

Stuff like this is what keeps corporate lawyers gainfully employed.

[BRWombat]

Interesting take from Television Without Pity, in their article on Must-see Movies from Sundance.

[INDENT]Escape from Tomorrow
Why You Should Care: The most buzzed-about movie at this year's festival was shot guerilla-style amidst the tourist-thronged avenues of Disneyland and Disney World. The plot concerns a mentally unstable father whose mind ventures to some dark, David Lynchian places while escorting his daughters through the Happiest Place on Earth.
Will You Get To See It? That's the million-dollar question. The fact that director Randy Moore shot the movie on location without any authorization from Disney means Escape From Tomorrow could be locked away in the Mouse House's Vault alongside moldy copies of Song of the South until the end of time. We're hoping against hope that the movie finds its way into the world, because it sounds too terrific to miss.[/INDENT]

[WEDFan]

Stuff like this is what keeps corporate lawyers gainfully employed.

Not only gainfully, but gleefully!

[PatchOBlack]

I probably wouldn't see Escape from Tomorrow if it was released for a couple of reasons: One, I'm not a big horror film fan to start with. Two, the whole "Disney is actually the source of evil" plotline has become a bit cliche, and though the film might have been done well, it just sounds like one of a hundred fan-fics.

[WEDFan]

I won't see it for the main reason that I thnk it's wrong. If you want to shoot a commercial movie (and it is a commercial movie since they are looking for a distributer) you can't just trick your way onto private proerty to film. I understand that it was key to his concept, and I understand that he probably couldn't afford to rent time for filming in the parks or to hire extras (even assuming Disney would allow the project), but just because you want to make a movie, doesn't mean you can if you don't have the budget.

It amounted to theft. Disney invested in a facility that they profit from by charging various fees for its usage in various ways. They paid a fee to use it as visitors -- not as sets. Further more, they knew what they were doing wasn't covered by the ticket fees.

Maybe I'm too uptight or whatever, but, to me, it isn't right, and I won't support it.

:soap:

Plus I'm not a big horror fan and I tired of the Disney is evil thing, so, right there with you PatchOBlack.

[hobie16]

Not only gainfully, but gleefully!

I think there's a class in law school that teaches lawyers how to mask big toothy grins and hold back mmmwwwaaaaaahahaha kinda laughs.

[hobie16]

... you can't just trick your way onto private proerty to film.

Isn't that how Mike Wallace got a lot of his hit pieces for 60 Minutes?

[WEDFan]

I think there's a class in law school that teaches lawyers how to mask big toothy grins and hold back mmmwwwaaaaaahahaha kinda laughs.

Only in front of judges and mediators. In front of clients it is part of marketing, and in front of adversaries it's part of strategy. :twisted:

Isn't that how Mike Wallace got a lot of his hit pieces for 60 Minutes?

As has been noted elsewhere, documentaries (and journalism) represent plausible "fair use" exceptions.

[hobie16]

Only in front of judges and mediators. In front of clients it is part of marketing, and in front of adversaries it's part of strategy. :twisted:

I liked Jon Voight's face in the Rainmaker when he knew his case was totally lost.

[BRWombat]

I think there's a class in law school that teaches lawyers how to mask big toothy grins and hold back mmmwwwaaaaaahahaha kinda laughs.

Dang it, who told?