Stupid Guest Tricks

I am giving much less info here than it would sound like I am. Also, we have a contingency plan. I won't go into that here.

Also, the storyline to which I was referring, while having its similarities, has not been fleshed out more than a few pages and a story board. And the story board is very, very familiar.

As long as she doesn't work for Disney her ideas are her sole property. If she is working for Disney she will have to prove that her ideas are from before she started working for them, especially if they find out about them and want them as their own. It's all in the forms one signs when they first join the Disney family.Look at the intellectual property clause.
Speaking of copyrights, read this story about Steamboat Willy.
http://www2.journalnow.com/business/200 ... ar-121897/

Avatar is NOT Pocahontas! It's Fern Gully!!!

8^P

I might have less of a problem with Avatar coming to WDW if the movie hadn't been yet another example of the tired old trope: the white man has to come in and Save The Natives.

(Pocahontas is sort of an inversion of that trope, which is why Mayonnaise is right.)

Amphigorey wrote:I might have less of a problem with Avatar coming to WDW if the movie hadn't been yet another example of the tired old trope: the white man has to come in and Save The Natives.

(Pocahontas is sort of an inversion of that trope, which is why Mayonnaise is right.)

LOL I have no problem with that. I have a problem with the fact that they are going to bulldoze and make everything plastic!

Mayonnaise wrote:Avatar is NOT Pocahontas! It's Fern Gully!!!

8^P

Wait... I thought it was just a new version of the Smurfs.... :p:

Odie wrote:Maybe I'm just a Negative Nellie, but this sounds like a perfectly horrible idea :(

Agreed.

I think Disney is trying to keep up with Universal's Harry Potter Land.

While I'm not wild about the choice since I didn't really like the movie, I'm pretty neutral overall about the idea of adding Avatar-land to AK.

Will I go in to check it out? Sure, at least once just to see it.

Will it get me to go to WDW more often? No, probably not.

Will I be like some of the Board X-ers and complain that's "it's ruining my Disney" or some other whine like that? No, since I know how to walk past park sections that I'm not interested in, kind of like I do already at AK for Rafiki's Planet Watch and Camp Minnie-Mickey... :twisted:

CBeilby wrote:Guys, Star Wars and Indiana Jones aren't Disney either. What's the difference here? James Cameron versus George Lucas? It shouldn't make any difference. Personally, I'm going to reserve judgement until more is announced.

But see, those films didn't get their own land in a DISNEY park. It's bad enough we have two Pixar films with their own lands (at least Disney owns those), but to have a completely non-Disney film with its own land in Disney territory is just so very Universal Studios.

Add me to the "DO NOT WANT" party. I miss the days when Disney was the trendsetter, not Universal. :(

BRWombat wrote:Wait... I thought it was just a new version of the Smurfs.... :p:

Smurfs is just Chipmunks painted blue.