Planes Movie Now part of Backlot Tour

[Cardinals314]

I don't think that it is a so called "holy relic' because Disney just leaves it out outside in the weather all day. What's wrong with it is that it's cheap, and maybe even a little insulting to what that particular plane means to WDW and some of it's fan base.

Disney can do better than this, if they want to. This is just a cheap, forced advertisement to try and get people to go see a movie. It's not a prop from the actual movie, nor does it represent any specific character that is in the movie.

I think what is irritating is the fact that this is Disney on the cheap. Instead of them spending money to actually promote this the right way, they stick a sign in front of a well known feature and put cardboard signs in the windows to try and make it look like it's actually from the movie. I would have thought that Disney would keep the plane unaltered and not used as a marketing gimmick.

I would have no issue if they created a plane from the movie and added it to the tour. This addition to the plane really is a cheap and tacky approach to advertise for a movie. The picture below is from the NASCAR race last weekend.

[jgarmer]

Well with Planes being another summer Bomb for Disney it will be gone real soon.

joe

[Wizzard419]

I don't think that it is a so called "holy relic' because Disney just leaves it out outside in the weather all day. What's wrong with it is that it's cheap, and maybe even a little insulting to what that particular plane means to WDW and some of it's fan base.

Disney can do better than this, if they want to. This is just a cheap, forced advertisement to try and get people to go see a movie. It's not a prop from the actual movie, nor does it represent any specific character that is in the movie.

I think what is irritating is the fact that this is Disney on the cheap. Instead of them spending money to actually promote this the right way, they stick a sign in front of a well known feature and put cardboard signs in the windows to try and make it look like it's actually from the movie. I would have thought that Disney would keep the plane unaltered and not used as a marketing gimmick.

So basically you are mad that they are doing the same thing that every other marketing department on the face of the earth is trying to do? Mainly, find any tangential application for their product to tie it into something current? Especially when you consider that the traditional, studio-backed film industry is suffering so much (and nearing it's last legs) they are going to start doing cheap stuff.

It is just an old corporate plane, so let it rot, chop it up and sell it to the die-hards (like they have done in the past), it really doesn't matter.

[Cardinals314]

It's completely understood that Disney is in it for the profits, I expect them to make money and profit from their endeavors. However, that can only happen when they stick to their core values and the quality with which they were known for. This is NOT along those lines, this is very Six Flags-like in its presentation. Cheap and hastily put-together. I just expect more from them than this. If you're okay with this, then good for you.

[Wizzard419]

That has nothing to do with core values, they are trying to find novel ways to use the budget they are given. Considering this was a direct to video release, the budget most likely had it's value set low because all the money spent eats away at the expectedly meager profits. To build a new prop, find placement for it, and have to remove it within a few weeks lest you be left with severely dated promos, is not only asinine, but downright wasteful. Consumers already ignore ads on a grand scale, in this case they have a captive audience in a ride that is probably on its last legs so they are going to exploit it but not waste too much on it.

[Cardinals314]

Disney does have a core value of quality for advertising. In order to stand out above other released movies and expansions to parks, Disney makes sure that all of their commercials and posters created are top quality. Disney is planning to make Planes into a trilogy. Thus, Disney could have placed the plane that was already built for advertising at the NASCAR event into the backlot tour.

What would the plane replace in backlot tour you may ask? Oh, how about the two WWII replica planes used to film "Pearl Harbor". But hey, Disney can put eyes and smiley faces on those too.

[Wizzard419]

Quality of ads, please elaborate. Usually they just go for tugs at heartstrings and hard-sells. I think the last creative promo they did was for Tron with full set replicas and a heavy reliance on viral marketing, which they later found out no longer has the strong ROI that it used to since people just ignore it like all other ads.

Pretty much doing anything more than a temporary decal on a plane is a waste of money for a film because of the cost to build a prop, move old props for the new one, the short lifespan of the ad, the potential for a flop, and (most importantly) the crushingly low number of impressions.

[Len90]

To me it seems like Disney is really just trying to get as much advertisement out of the movies as they can now. Pretty much every movie now will be represented in the parks in an effort it get you to see it after your vacation.

As for movies bombing this summer, I think Disney will want to forget about this summer except Monsters Uni.

[cy1229]

I think what makes the Planes-izing of the Backlot Tour is the way it feels like something no one really likes being crammed down one's throat. Cars was wildly successful - and rightfully so, it's a really cute movie - so people weren't outrageously insulted at seeing Cars merchandise, characters, and references all over the place. Same with Nemo (resorts!) and other well-received films. For adults, Planes is just a blatant attempt to continue to capitalize on the Cars concept, and they ain't buyin'. Kids don't like it because it's not a good movie.

Anyway, it's akin to seeing preview after preview after preview for a TV show that has received negative reviews from nearly every critic who screened it. We have a saying in our house, the value of the program is inversely proportional to the amount of ad time it gets promoting it. Good stuff doesn't need the hard sell. Disney is desperately trying to hard sell a subpar movie, and Disney fans don't like that.

[Cardinals314]

Quality of ads, please elaborate. Usually they just go for tugs at heartstrings and hard-sells. I think the last creative promo they did was for Tron with full set replicas and a heavy reliance on viral marketing, which they later found out no longer has the strong ROI that it used to since people just ignore it like all other ads.

Pretty much doing anything more than a temporary decal on a plane is a waste of money for a film because of the cost to build a prop, move old props for the new one, the short lifespan of the ad, the potential for a flop, and (most importantly) the crushingly low number of impressions.

The advertisements Disney creates and produces are not done cheaply. Disney creates an entire slew of different commercials advertising their parks and other endeavors. If Disney went on the cheap route, all of the advertisements would be identical except for the offer presented near the end. Disney does use the same music in all of their park advertisements, but that is the only similarity. The style of the ads themselves are genuine and top quality as well. Even one of the Planes trailers is very well made. It is just flying sequences that contains no dialogue and just has music playing.

When you say that doing anything more than a decal is wasteful, would you say the same thing about the Cars franchise? Disney has created replicas of the characters from Cars and that has been a hit inside the parks

[boilerbabe]

I just think it's cool, am I the only one?!

[Wizzard419]

The advertisements Disney creates and produces are not done cheaply. Disney creates an entire slew of different commercials advertising their parks and other endeavors. If Disney went on the cheap route, all of the advertisements would be identical except for the offer presented near the end. Disney does use the same music in all of their park advertisements, but that is the only similarity. The style of the ads themselves are genuine and top quality as well. Even one of the Planes trailers is very well made. It is just flying sequences that contains no dialogue and just has music playing.

When you say that doing anything more than a decal is wasteful, would you say the same thing about the Cars franchise? Disney has created replicas of the characters from Cars and that has been a hit inside the parks

Expense does not equate to quality nor creativity. Arguably, the route they take with their ads is not high quality since they just show the product.

Simple, Cars is one of the biggest franchises that they have, even when the second movie had a disappointing review, it still stacked paper to the sky (higher than the original). There is also a critical point you miss, the cars did not appear until after the movie was a smash hit. This is a spin-off at best, and money won't flow as freely until it can prove itself.

[Cardinals314]

So you believe that expenses have nothing to do with quality? That's naive. The amount of expenses has everything to do with quality of a product no matter what it is. The more money that is budgeted to the actual creation of an item, the higher quality of that said item. There is more demand for higher quality items, therefore higher quality items cost more. It also costs more to build a higher quality item which in turn factors into price.

[Wizzard419]

No, what I said was they do not correlate. Using your logic, that would mean that John Connor was the highest quality film ever produced.

Just because you throw money at anything does not actually improve quality, it just increases the cost. And again, the ads Disney runs are low quality, they may not be cheap, but they are not pushing any boundaries.

[Cardinals314]

Money was spent more on Pirates of the Caribbean 3 than John Carter. More money was spent creating Tangled than John Carter. Both of those are not adjusted for inflation. You may want to look up the facts first before posting.