Disneyfication Without Representation

January 17, 2003 10:52 PM

Disneyfication Without Representation. Adbusters has a billboard in Times Square that is apparently in the way of a movie shoot on a Miramax (Disney owned) production. Miramax demanded the billboard be altered, obscured or removed. Adbusters is choosing to go with altered.
posted by jonson (13 comments total)

that first alteration is very good. when was it determined that the world had to altered to suit the needs of filmmakers? isn't that why they built studios and cgi?
posted by cachilders at 11:00 PM on January 17, 2003

Yeah, I don't really understand the legalities of all this. I mean, does Disney OWN all of Times Square? If so, can they FORCE this isue?
posted by jonson at 11:07 PM on January 17, 2003

Disney should just buy the damn building, raze it, and put a Disney shop in its place.

Don't scribble communist malarkey on the symbol of America, hippies.
posted by hama7 at 11:15 PM on January 17, 2003

Wasn't this also done for Spider-man? or did I dream that up?
posted by riffola at 11:15 PM on January 17, 2003

It's becoming commonplace to digitally insert paid-placement logos and ads over billboards in new movies. It sickens me.
posted by Cerebus at 11:19 PM on January 17, 2003

Yeah, with spiderman I think it was Samsung that sued over their billboard change in the movie. What happened with that case?
posted by mathowie at 11:19 PM on January 17, 2003

I don't even know why Disney would contact adbusters. Wouldn't it just be easier to cover it in post-production?
posted by nadawi at 11:25 PM on January 17, 2003

Okay, i looked around, and from what i could find (not substantial enough for link) they have no more ownership than their actual theatre and store holdings. At the same time, however, the city seems beholden to the corporation for "cleaning up" what was once a crime and pornography laden strip of road. So i suppose it becomes a question of whether the city will strongarm those who oppose the company that making times square a tourist spot instead of a patrol stop.

Here is an interesting read (part movie review, part article) about the sex culture of Times Square versus its "Disneyfication".
posted by cachilders at 11:27 PM on January 17, 2003

nadawi, i think that is where spider man got in trouble, though i'm not sure what came of it.
posted by cachilders at 11:29 PM on January 17, 2003

Samuel Delany's Times Square Red, Times Square Blue has a fantastic scholarly analysis of the redevelopment, as well as a really interesting account of what the gay porn theaters were like.
posted by slipperywhenwet at 11:52 PM on January 17, 2003

A couple of years ago Hollywood decided to use my street as a set for a movie.
One morning a neighbor woke up at 6 AM to a pounding on his door. Some little directors assistant told him he had to move his car from his driveway because it didn't fit into the shoot.
He told them to fuck off.
Half an hour later he awoke to a tow truck trying to remove his car from his property.
Two hours and a black eye later he moved his car for $2,000.
By the way, the black eye wasn't his. The two grand was.
posted by flatlander at 12:19 AM on January 18, 2003

i like number one, but the icon is incorrect....ears should be 60 degree ellipses, and 55 degrees angle, from center of large circle (head)
posted by billybobtoo at 12:56 AM on January 18, 2003

It seems Adbusters liked this story a lot too, since it's been there for a while...
posted by nomis at 1:02 AM on January 18, 2003