Why the latter? According to the LA Times, Randy Moore, the filmmaker, recorded and released the film entirely without the Walt Disney Company's knowledge or consent. Using a handheld camera, scripts on smartphones, and unknowing guests as extras, Moore recorded the entire film, including a scene in which Epcot blows up, entirely within the resort over the past 3 years, then edited the feature in South Korea to avoid leaks and rumors.
Critically, the movie is doing very well. The Walt Disney Company has yet to comment on the film, which arguably showcases the resort in a negative light.
While Disney may pursue legal action and prevent this film from ever being shown commercially, we may have some help on that front from pirates... and I don't mean Captain Jack Sparrow.
Tweet
As for the film I work in law and what this film maker has done is broken the law.... and apart from that like any story there are always 2 sides otherwise you get a skewed one sided view that just missleads people.
Also, I think it's great that this site is fair about Disney and doesn't just write glowing things. Keep up the great work!
As for my comment about the disney film yes without critisim things dont get better as long as its constructive, film making especially when its a fly on the wall can give a very onwsided view. Good journelism should allow for a balanced view with both sides of the argument being given, a undercover report just concentrating at the bad points is not a fair reprensentation of a service or business, for every negative exposure there may be just as many positives. Just saying if you want a fair representation give both sides of the story and let the watcher decide rather then force feed a one sided argument. Its like the rest of the world viewing all Americans as gun wielding red necks in the bible belt. That comment is certainly not my view but its to make a point how damaging a very narrow unresearched view can be.
I do think Disney gets the most flack on the site, but then again, it's usually the standard that all other rides and parks are compared.
If the comments are what suggest it, any regular on this site knows that most of Mike's posts are for laughs. I don't think he really cares about Disney one way or the other.
Now as far as the movie goes - it isn't journalism! It's entertainment! It doesn't have to be balanced because it is a fictional account set in real locations which I believe is the premise of a large percentage of the movies released every year.
As far as putting Disney in a fictitious bad light, welcome to the club, MIckey! Just about every American institution worth a hoot has been portrayed in less than flattering ways in movies over the years and just about every major American city has been blown up, flooded, and/or destroyed by aliens or mutagenic monsters. It was inevitable that Disney would eventually join the crowd.
The only mistake that this filmmaker made was wasting his inheritance to finance a movie that American audiences will never see because Disney will have it tied up in court forever. As far as breaking the law, that is debatable. Disney has to prove trademark infringement which they most likely will and should do. Beyond that, this guy has succeeded. He's gotten the attention and critical acclaim he wanted, and he's a sure bet to get a production deal from somebody in the industry.
Disney wouldn't be in the wrong for suing, but why bother? Is anyone in the target audience for this film - indie film buffs, students, and critics - really going to change their opinion about the corporation after watching this piece? I think it's an amazing achievement in art, and for a corporation whose roots stem from grand artistic achievement to blacklist a film which accomplished just that seems callous.
This article has been archived and is no longer accepting comments.
