Escape from Tomorrow

[mickclub1955]

Given how overprotective (read: litigious) Disney can be about its property, it boggles the mind how filmmaker Randy Moore could ever pull off shooting an unsanctioned feature film entirely on location at Disney theme parks without the company's approval. And yet, from the looks of the first official trailer, he managed to do it. A testament to true guerrilla filmmaking, Moore and his crew shot the fantasy-horror flick "Escape from Tomorrow" using handheld camcorders (the kind a tourist would use) and even kept the project a secret by editing the footage in South Korea. Already, the final product has almost as much buzz as an official Disney production. Let's hope, for Moore's sake, the megacorp can admire his moxie and not sue him into oblivion.

[dobby2010]

I saw the trailer a few days ago. It looks very creepy. Wouldn't want to watch it right before a disney vacation lol. Unfortunately I would expect disney will make sure it doesn't have any sort f widespread release.

[SBETigg]

I agree that it boggles the mind how he managed to get away with this. I still expect some kind of last minute injunction to stop it, but it appears to be going forth. Amazing. And... scary. The look of it freaks me out a bit.

[Joannelet]

Almost 3 years ago we were there and saw a guy with a large video camera (and I mean large) filming the Epcot ball for a really long time. I kept telling my husband how weird is that and we were laughing about it because it was such a large tv like video camera. (We thought it was one of those really really old ones because it was just so out of place) I wonder now if this was this! This is beyond terrible and I cannot believe Disney isn't going after this!!!!

[Mendelson]

Big ole bump.

Just watched this last night. The filmmakers said that eventually they were kinda sorta asked to leave (in the making-of special feature):

At one point the family walked through the turnstyles and into the park. The camera guys, already inside, did not get the shot the director wanted and so the family went out and came back in. The father/actor was then met by a smiling Disney employee who called him aside asked why they exited and re-entered the park seven minutes later. The father hemmed and hawed and said that he needed to take his son to the restroom (the mother did the same with the daughter) and while inside they took off their mic's and hid them in their socks. When they exited the restroom this particular CM had his back turned, watching a parade, so they all snuck out and, from the way the story was told, that concluded their park shooting. Since this behavior (exiting and re-entering the park not long after) is not that weird, I'm guessing they had been noticed/ID'd prior to this and Disney was on the lookout.

A fair use lawyer they had said that Disney didn't have much that it could say, to stop the film. The movie is parody (the message is that horrible things can happen even at the "happiest place on earth"), which is protected. The next question would be violating trespassing rules/laws. Did they do anything forbidden while on property? Destroy property? No. All they did was take videos, which Disney does not forbid and in fact, encourages.

The filmmakers changed the music when it was going to be recognizable (IASW, for example) and the only time that the word "Disney" is used by a character, it's bleeped out, though obviously the parks and characters are recognizable.

It's not Citizen Kane (it's not even The Avengers, though it certainly makes you use your brain more), but just for the way it was done I'm glad to have seen it, though I didn't love it.

[SBETigg]

As it is, not too many people are aware of the film. If Disney had gone after them late in the development, it would have given the film a publicity bump and possibly could have brought out more Disney haters. It's probably best they just let it go...

[Mendelson]

I thought the same thing....by adding their opposition it turns it into something much bigger, publicity wise.

[Arielfan98]

I know this thread is just discussing the legality of the film but I thought I'd express my opinion of the film.

I am probably alone on this, but I have never felt more offended and disturbed by a movie in my life. The trailer made me believe it was about a family and the dad had to save his wife and kid's from being killed/disappearing like the scene when they were riding It's a Small World...I thought they were going to show the kids being possessed or something. Instead, the whole time he was a pervert dreaming of other women, not to mention what appeared to be teenage females. I didn't expect nudity and sure I've seen it in movies before but this was TOO much nudity for me.
There were other tidbits in the movie that offended me too like when he just blatantly said "looks like a giant testicle" when the family saw the EPCOT ball. Really? In front of little children, not okay :/ I know it's acting but still...
Furthermore, there were elements to the film that made me want to Cat flu? C'mon really? I did not need to see him dispose his waste like that....it was highly unnecessary.
I do not plan on seeing this film ever again and the reason I didn't quit watching it after I first began to become offended is because I had to see the whole thing to give it a fair review.
This movie deserves .1 stars for me. .1 because I do give the director props for not getting sued by Disney and getting away with it, but it deserves no credit other than that reason from my perspective.
Thanks for listening to me rant

[Mendelson]

I think any movie that is described as "the most provocative" film from a film festival is very likely not going to be smooth sailing for all viewers.

And personally, I was more offended and disturbed by Cinderella 2.

[baldburke]

It was like the Blair Witch Project of 2013, but way less successful. It's an interested concept to shoot a movie on property but the story and plot left much to be desired. If you've seen it once then there's no need to return.

[Arielfan98]

It's always a bad sign when the audience can imagine a better and completely different story from the trailer than they get.



About half an hour into it, when we finally see the two happy climbing-over-each-other French girls with their boyfriends at the pool, I was literally thinking, "They have boyfriends??"
(I'm in Amherst/Smith College territory, where the average passerby can spot overdoing-it-in-public lesbians twenty yards away on a cloudy day, blindfolded. For the first third of the movie, I was thinking, "Dude, don't knock yourself out, 'nuff said...", and kept waiting for some Chevy Chase/Vacation scene where he finds out. )

But oh, the bad rear-projection. And the "Spot the Anaheim" scenes. And the "princesses" in off-the-rack Halloween costumes. And the cheap gags straight out of a Universal commercial.
(So, which was the "happy" Disney princess who wore the medieval peak-cap costume?...That was Rapunzel, right? Or one of the three fairies?)

Yes, those cheap princess costumes made me want to gag and furthermore, from a Disney Freak's perspective the changing from WDW to DLR made me feel nauseous like car sickness. I had no idea prior to watching the film that both WDW and DLR were used as filimg locations, I thought it was just WDW, so it confused the heck out of me!