"Escape from Tomorrow" movie filmed in Disneyland secretly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The International

He's not anti-Disney at all, it sounds like he was a fan of Walt's work and isn't too thrilled with the corporate direction since his death.

---

So he says. It's one thing to make an underground, non-commercial fan film and distribute it virally. But to punk the corporation while claiming artistic motives, and then take his film to Sundance (one of the biggest trade fairs for new filmmakers to attract corporate money), is beyond disingenuous.

IMO Disney is entirely within their rights to launch every legal missile in their arsenal on this guy and his business associates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thedustycoyote

^ i don't understand how this film 'abuses' the park. it seems like it was filmed without causing any disturbances, otherwise it would have been dealt with by security. & as someone pointed out earlier, you can't accuse the filmmaker of just trying to make a buck - you don't know his intentions & he very well may be just trying to make a film with artistic integrity. disneyland has become a cultural landmark & this filmmaker chose to use it as the films setting.

obviously disney can't condone the behavior but i don't see them drastically changing any rules because of this. the article says they only filmed with one small canon camera. what can they really do? ban cameras all together? seems unlikely.

---

Technically he was stealing props from Disney and was possibly trying to monetize off of it. Also most of the extras were real people unaware that they were being filmed. That violates the right of privacy for the guests at the Disneyland Resort as they did not sign a waiver. Usually when Disney is filming in the parks, they have a sign out in front that says “If you do not wish to appear in the filming, please stay clear of the area. By entering this area you grant the producers of the footage the right to use footage of your likeness and your voice." Also, from the LA Times article, "Abramsohn said after the screening that the experience was "emotionally intense...[I was] a little scared as an actor running around and bumping into actual people."" So technically he was disturbing the other guests and possibly was violating Disney's rules as Disneyland is considered private property. Disney requires that photos/video that are for non-personal use to be cleared by their legal department.

Without the clearances and releases, this will very likely never see the light of day commercially. Any revenues derived from it would be tied-up in civil litigation. Fair implied (not express) use, which you and I operate under when we take images of our family and friends in the parks, doesn't cover his narrative work in the park and Disney could easily argue that it dilutes and tarnishes the brand. The unwitting people caught as background players in the scenes also have cause for legal action against the filmmaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Wiggins

So he says. It's one thing to make an underground, non-commercial fan film and distribute it virally. But to punk the corporation while claiming artistic motives, and then take his film to Sundance (one of the biggest trade fairs for new filmmakers to attract corporate money), is beyond disingenuous.

IMO Disney is entirely within their rights to launch every legal missile in their arsenal on this guy and his business associates.

---

Ehh, it's pretty awesome from an artistic point of view. Legally I'm sure Disney could destroy him, but making a macabre film at the Happiest Place on Earth using unconventional tactics is pretty interesting, just like Banksy's Disneyland installation was when that happened. Plus, really it's not like the guy could have imagined that he'd make a ton of money from this, he knows as well as anyone that Disney's not going to let him cash in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pizzapants

You mean the part where the people delude themselves into thinking that this company isn't based on Walt not being in it for the money, because he had no concept of money and if it weren't for Roy to keep him in check, then there would be no company and making it a corporation is just a natural evolution of a big business and Disneyland is actually better today than it was on opening day? That opinion?

---

What? It has nothing to do with Walt liking or disliking money. Read the Steve Jobs analogy, it's about a (decidedly for-profit!) company where the strength lies in the leader's vision, and the fear that once that leader is gone the company will lose the je ne seis quoi that made it so special in the first place. Which, again, is something that gets posted here quite a bit.

Sure the plot sounds a little too out there and the execution is apparently lackluster (so says pretty much every review I've read), but thats not really the selling point. Even if the film is terrible start to finish, the fact that he was able to make this movie on property in secret is so exciting its incredible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The International

Ehh, it's pretty awesome from an artistic point of view. Legally I'm sure Disney could destroy him, but making a macabre film at the Happiest Place on Earth using unconventional tactics is pretty interesting, just like Banksy's Disneyland installation was when that happened. Plus, really it's not like the guy could have imagined that he'd make a ton of money from this, he knows as well as anyone that Disney's not going to let him cash in.



What? It has nothing to do with Walt liking or disliking money. Read the Steve Jobs analogy, it's about a (decidedly for-profit!) company where the strength lies in the leader's vision, and the fear that once that leader is gone the company will lose the je ne seis quoi that made it so special in the first place. Which, again, is something that gets posted here quite a bit.

---

"I don't mind what you did. I mind the way you did it."
- Robert Redford as Bob Woodward,
All the President's Men

http://i50.tinypic.com/2l6n39.jpg

Disney's photo policy:

Quote:

---

Professional photographers with professional cameras or recording equipment, who are visiting the Disneyland Resort with the intent to take photographs or recordings of people, Disneyland Resort properties, or icons for professional purposes must make prior arrangements with Disneyland Resort Media Relations.

---

He broke the rules. I don't think it should be something that is glorified.

Interesting to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erik Olson

Without the clearances and releases, this will very likely never see the light of day commercially. Any revenues derived from it would be tied-up in civil litigation. Fair implied (not express) use, which you and I operate under when we take images of our family and friends in the parks, doesn't cover his narrative work in the park and Disney could easily argue that it dilutes and tarnishes the brand. The unwitting people caught as background players in the scenes also have cause for legal action against the filmmaker.

---

This. Even if you're doing a little student film or entering a photo of someone else in a contest you still have to get your performers to sign release forms and that wasn't done here. Any one of those extras would have a case because their likenesses were used without their permission.

Also...it's more than a little hypocritical to rail against Big Evil Corporations and then make a film by exploiting people as unpaid and unknowing extras.

I too would like to see this film...
We can only hope that for once in their miserable corporate lives, the Disney lawyers will do the right thing and not call on their bloated pet python that is all of the grotesquely archaic trademark laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DizneyPhotoGuy

http://i50.tinypic.com/2l6n39.jpg

---

On a side note, this is an awesome looking poster!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonaldMissingPants

Technically he was stealing props from Disney and was possibly trying to monetize off of it. Also most of the extras were real people unaware that they were being filmed. That violates the right of privacy for the guests at the Disneyland Resort as they did not sign a waiver. Usually when Disney is filming in the parks, they have a sign out in front that says “If you do not wish to appear in the filming, please stay clear of the area. By entering this area you grant the producers of the footage the right to use footage of your likeness and your voice." Also, from the LA Times article, "Abramsohn said after the screening that the experience was "emotionally intense...[I was] a little scared as an actor running around and bumping into actual people."" So technically he was disturbing the other guests and possibly was violating Disney's rules as Disneyland is considered private property. Disney requires that photos/video that are for non-personal use to be cleared by their legal department.

---

For those that want to applaud the "creativity" of this director, they must understand that true creativity in filmmaking is the ability to act creatively within the constraints of these two (very important) laws, not by completely disregarding them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erik Olson

Without the clearances and releases, this will very likely never see the light of day commercially. Any revenues derived from it would be tied-up in civil litigation. Fair implied (not express) use, which you and I operate under when we take images of our family and friends in the parks, doesn't cover his narrative work in the park and Disney could easily argue that it dilutes and tarnishes the brand. The unwitting people caught as background players in the scenes also have cause for legal action against the filmmaker.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malina

This. Even if you're doing a little student film or entering a photo of someone else in a contest you still have to get your performers to sign release forms and that wasn't done here. Any one of those extras would have a case because their likenesses were used without their permission.

Also...it's more than a little hypocritical to rail against Big Evil Corporations and then make a film by exploiting people as unpaid and unknowing extras.

---

This is my favorite point.

I checked the schedule for my local international film festival and it's not on there. I enjoy both the macabre and Disney but I really hope this gets squashed. There are thousands of good films most people do not seek out because they are so accustomed to being spoon fed commercial and reality crap, they do not even think to explore. I find it extremely annoying that this would garner attention, just because of where it was shot. It worries me that spectacle is all audiences care about anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DizneyPhotoGuy

http://i50.tinypic.com/2l6n39.jpg

---

What's up with the older Monorail model?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DisneyIPresume

What's up with the older Monorail model?

---

Because they escaped from tomorrow into yesterday.