Why For?

First of, Heather B. writes in to ask:

Jim –

I hate to ask this, since it’s been asked of you twice in one form or another, including once by me. But the natives over in the “Aladdin” fandom are getting restless…

You said previously that “Aladdin” was coming to IMAX January 2004 and the reason we hadn’t heard anything was because Disney was waiting so they wouldn’t spend so much on advertising. Well, it’s December 18th now, so either they’re waiting *really* late or the date’s been changed or cancelled. The IMAX website lists (this film) as coming out in 2004 (no more specific) and the Disney Giant Screen Movies page doesn’t mention “Al” at all, but says that Disney’s holiday Imax release is “The Young Black Stallion.” Did “Aladdin” get bumped to a later date (again?!) or just cancelled altogether?

Thanks a bunch,
Heather

Heather –

Jeese, I don’t know what to tell you. I mean, I know for a fact that — over the past two years — Disney Feature Animation has devoted hundreds of man hours (and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars) getting “Aladdin” ready for its IMAX debut. But then — when both “Beauty and the Beast: The Special Edition” and “The Lion King” both under-performed during their large format runs — the accountanteers who are currently running the Mouse Factory suddenly decided that perhaps they should keep Robin William’s Genie in his lamp for a little while longer.

What exactly is the problem here, Heather? Well, given all the money that the Mouse had spent on prepping “BATB” and “TLK” for their large screen debuts (Plus the millions more poured that the corporation had poured into the promotion of these two pictures), Mickey had really expected to get some sort of return on that investment. But when that didn’t happen in both 2001 or 2002, Disney then decided: “Well, maybe people really DON’T want to pay to see cartoons that they already own in the REALLY BIG screen. Maybe we should show them something new instead.”

Enter “The Young Black Stallion.” Or — as the folks at Walt Disney Studios prefer to refer to it — IMAX’s last hope.

To explain: The real reason that “The Young Black Stallion” is being released in what had been previously announced as “Aladdin” ‘s old slot is that the Walt Disney Company is giving large format theaters one final chance. If “The Young Black Stallion” actually manages to connect with audiences, Disney may opt to continue its flirtation with IMAX. Produce new films specifically to be shown for large format theaters. If — on the other hand — “The Young Black Stallion” comes up lame at the box office, the Mouse may opt to this whole IMAX idea out to pasture.

The real sad part of this story is that the IMAX versions of “Aladdin,” “The Little Mermaid” and “Pocahontas” are reportedly already prepped and sitting in the can, ready to unspool. But — if what I’m hearing is correct, Heather — the only way that we’re now ever going to see “Aladdin” on the REALLY BIG screen is if Buena Vista Home Entertainment opts to show the film in IMAX this fall as a special promotional event prior to the official kick-off of the sales of the “Platinum Edition” of “Aladdin.”

Which makes me sad, Heather. Why for? Because “Aladdin” really is one of my favorite Disney animated films. And I was so looking forward to seeing “Friend Like Me” and “Prince Ali” play out on the big screen. Here’s hoping that the folks at Disney Studios have a change of heart and at least allow this John Musker and Ron Clements classic to at least have a short run in large format theaters sometime in 2004.

If not … well, here’s the deal, Heather. When the “Platinum Edition” of “Aladdin” comes out in the Fall of 2004, you and I are finding the largest plasma screen television possible. And — as the “Aladdin” DVD plays — we are going to sit impossibly close to the screen, okay?

Is it a date?

Moving on to our next question, Steve writes in to ask:

Dear Jim:

Let me begin by thanking you for the wonderfully informative articles you have shared through the years. I have enjoyed them and the integrity of your reporting ver y much.

My question regarding “Home on the Range” concerns its April release date. I am surprised that it has not been scheduled as a tent-pole summer or Christmas picture as it is a general rule with Disney animated features. After all, this is not a small film from the TV animation division, but a big budget film that would normally go out in June or November when it enjoys a longer, more profitable run. This says to me that the studio lacks faith in its quality or public appeal. Do you know what their motivation is for this less prestigious slot?

Thank you very much!

Sincerely,
Steve

Dear Steve –

Thanks for the kind words regarding the crud I churn out for JimHillMedia.com. As for “Home on the Range” ‘s release date … As hard as this may be for you to believe, Steve, the Mouse actually isn’t throwing this traditionally animated film away. But — rather — the marketing staff at Walt Disney Studios is doing its level best to position this Will Finn and John Sanford picture properly. With the hope that “HOTR” will be the only family friendly film in theaters on April 2, 2004. Which will hopefully translate into some significant dough for Disney.

Don’t under-estimate that late winter / early spring time slot, Steve. Though it may not logically seem like as lucrative a time to release a film as — say — the depths of summer and/or the height of the holiday season, animated movies can still rake in plenty of moola in March and April. Take — for example — the $46 million that “Ice Age” made over its opening weekend — which was March 15 — 17, 2002. That CG Blue Sky / 20th Century Fox release then went on to gross $176 million during its initial domestic run, with most of those ticket sales occurring in late March and early April.

So “Home on the Range” may do more than “Bust a Moo on April 2.” It may actually go on to bust a few box office records. Provided — of course — that Walt Disney Pictures’ promotional department does its job right.

Which may be kind of difficult. Why for? Because — the way I hear it — Roseanne is still plenty pissed at Disney execs for allowing ABC to abruptly cancel her “Real Roseanne Show” back in August (which — in turn — derailed the “Domestic Goddess” cooking show that the comedienne was prepping for the ABC Family cable channel). Which means that Roseanne (who provides vocals for the lead character of “Home on the Range,” a humorous but heroic cow called Maggie) may opt not to take part in promoting the picture next April.

Or worse (given the comedienne’s outspoken reputation), Roseanne (in an effort to get back at those Disney exes) may decide to bad-mouth this Will Fill and John Sanford picture. Which would really be a shame. Why for? Because I keep hearing that “Home on the Range” may be one of the funniest films that Walt Disney Feature Animation has churned out in years. And I think that it would be terrible if a feud between Roseanne and the stupid studio execs who mishandled the cancellation of the comedienne’s latest TV show ended up tripping up “HOTR”‘s one real shot at box office success.

Next, Bob D. checks in to ask:

Hi Jim,

Could you let me know where I can purchase that “Disappointed” t shirt that was featured on your site recently?

Thanks

Bob D.

Bob D.

Sure. Just follow this link and the gentleman who runs this extremely fun site will be happy to set you up with a “Disappointed” t-shirt (the OFFICIAL shirt of the “Oust Eisner” revolution).

And — finally — Bad Toupee drops by to ask:

Hey, Jim –

What happened to that contest you were running at JimHillMedia.com a few weeks back? The one where people were competing for copies of Jason Surrell’s “Haunted Mansion” book? Who eventually ended up winning those two copies of the book you were giving away?

Just curious,
Bad Toupee

Dear Bad Toupee –

Omigod! You’re right. What with dealing with MouseFest 2003 and then all this Roy / Stanley / Michael stuff, I completely blanked that contest that I started back in November.

For those of you who don’t recall: Back on November 10th, I asked JHM readers to help me answer some questions that a WDW cast member (Who was a Japanese national working at one of the food stands at the Japanese pavilion at Epcot’s World Showcase) asked about some vague sounding English terms. That request — “The Epcot English Lesson” — resulted in a huge pile of e-mail. A total of 247 people sent in entries, with some JimHillMedia.com readers actually sending several different versions on what they thought “few,” “some,” “many,” “a handful” et al meant. With the hope that that would help them score a copy of Jason’s wonderful “Haunted Mansion” book.

Given that so many of the entries that I received for the “Epcot English Lesson” contest last month were so witty and so well thought out, it was damned near impossible for me to decide which two JHM readers had done the best job of summing up what these truly vague English terms meant. But — after reading and re-reading all of these well written e-mails — two entries (like cream) rose to the top.

The first prize winner came from Margaret Weatherford. Who (I think) used a lot of common sense when it came to try and answering this nonsensical question:

Jim,

I think your Japanese correspondent’s problem is that he is seeking to place objective labels on subjective terms, and restaurant patrons fully expect follow-up questions as to the exact amounts that will make them happy. (This problem arises because Disney portion sizes are so odd and variable that no one knows what size to ask for, especially with unfamiliar Japanese food.) But here is my contest entry anyway.

Few = Three to five. Disney guests probably want as many as there are people in their party.
Some = The standard amount of whatever is mentioned for the number of people in the party.
Couple = Officially two, but people often use it to make their request sound smaller, and hope to be offered three or four.
Handful = Literally means a handful, or a handful-sized scoop.
More = A second standard amount of whatever is mentioned.
A Ton = The largest size available of whatever is mentioned.
Much = Much is only used in the phrase “too much,” and has no size equivalent.
Too much = A subjective term. It’s more than the diner wants, and a restaurant server should offer a smaller size.
Plenty = In “that’s plenty,” the amount given is at least as much as the diner wants, and no more should be offered. In “plenty of,” the diner wants a larger amount than is usually served.
Many = Rarely used except in “too many,” but it could be used to mean a majority — “many of us like sushi.”
Too Many = The same as “that’s plenty,” but used for countable objects.
Bunch = For people, a group of at least five but less than twelve. For food/utensils/etc., the patron expects a larger amount than is usually offered, but may need more or less than the server subsequently gives.
Group = Always applies to people, and at Disney means a group of people visiting the park together, likely larger than the typical family. Just ask “how many in your group?”
Several = Between five and ten countable objects.
A Pile of = A large handful, usually of napkins.
Enough = In “that’s enough,” the same as “that’s plenty.” Sometimes people may use it when they really don’t know how much they need (of soy sauce or wasabi, for example) and expect the server to know.
A Lot of = Like “a bunch,” means that the diner wants more than is usually offered.
Smattering = Rarely used. I would say that it means a small amount, generally sprinkled on or mixed in other food.

Our second JHM prize winner — Mark Bagby — took a much more humorous approach to the problem:

Okay, this is challenging. Now I know why those who learn English as a
second language struggle so.

First, it depends on what you’re asking for…and these are all
personal. If you’re asking for packets of sweetener, no problem. If it’s
steaks, that’s another story! The problem with these phrases is they are
undetermined, indefinite terms of imprecision…which is the point. We
use these terms because we don’t know the specifics of the situation, or
exactly what we want or need. If I need two, I’ll ask for two. If I’m
not certain how much I’ll need, I’ll ask for a couple, or a few.

But, that said…Here are my definitions:

“Few” means three or four; my dictionary says “some but not many; a
small number.” Of course, that’s relative, but if you asked me for a
few, I would give you three or four.

“Some” is an unknown, or unspecified number, according to the
dictionary, but I would say four, five or six.

“Couple” is definitely two. As in a handsome couple…or the verb,
coupling, which means two. Unless it’s a threesome. So that would be
few…and far between, too.

“Handful” implies small objects that you can hold in your hand. So,
whatever you can scoop up in one hand. A handful of water, for instance,
would be quite different than a handful of M and Ms.

“More” means a greater amount than what you’ve got, whether it’s one
or…ahem…more.

“A Ton” literally would be 2,000 pounds (unless it’s a metric tonne),
but I’d say it’s a weight heavier than you expected it to weigh. You
pick something up and you can sling it on your back–a backpack,
say–and it’s more weight than you thought…at which point, we groan,
“That weighs a ton!”

“Much” means sufficient quantity, usually meaning more than one, I
think. ‘Nuff said?

“Too Much” is more than ’nuff…usually in a case when the cup isn’t big
enough, the bowl isn’t big enough, or the price is too high. Those are
separate definitions, I suppose. “You gave me too much” is quite
different from “You charged me too much!”

“Plenty” means sufficient quantity to meet the need. Specific number?
Well, it could be zero…”I got plenty o’nuthin'” still means zero.

“Many” is a large yet indefinite number. I’d say, ten or more.

“Too Many” is Disneyland on a day between Christmas and New Year’s.
Otherwise, see “Too Much”.

“Bunch” is six to seven, I think. As in the “Wild Bunch,” or
“Magnificent Seven.”

“Group” to me is six or more people. You can’t use it for anything else.
People only…unless you use it as a verb.

“Several” according to my dictionary is more than two but fewer than
many. So, by my definition, three to nine.

“A Pile Of” has to have some kind of conical shape, like a pyramid.
Otherwise it’s stacked. So, size doesn’t matter, just the shape.

“Enough” is about where I am with definitions. Sufficient to meet the
need, with no excess, waste or reserve.

“A Lot Of” is a synonym for much. It means a great quantity…which is
again relative.

“Smattering” is a small quantity of something, usually referred to in
cooking or painting. Therefore it’s imprecise. One garlic clove in two
pounds of pork sausage is a smattering…but in a teaspoon, it would be
a lot. Too much for some. If you eat too many pounds, you’ll grow a
bunch…maybe as big a couple. A few pounds isn’t so much…enough. This
is just a pile of…

You get the idea.

Thanks!

Mark Bagby

So if Mark and Margaret could please sling an e-mail to me at my stadlerhill@mindspring.com address, I’d be happy to put your copies of “The Haunted Mansion: From the Magic Kingdom to the Movies” in the mail to you. Thanks to all of you who entered (And — yes — we will be holding more contests here at JimHillMedia.com starting in 2004).

That’s it for this week, folks. Sorry that it’s be so long between “Why Fors.” But — what with all the traveling that I’ve been doing lately plus all the really-for-real Disney-related news that’s been popping up all over the Web lately — I had to put this column on hold for a while.

But — given how popular this particular feature is with JHM readers — I promise that we’ll get “Why For?” back up to regular feature status just as soon as we all get through the holidays, okay?

Talk to you again on Monday,

jrh