beatles

Last week, news organizations and Disney bloggers learned that the Mouse House had filed building permits with the city of Anaheim related to a parking structure at Disneyland Resort.

That immediately sparked rumors about a third park — a long-held dream of Walt Disney Co. fans who want to see more rides, themed areas and Mickey-related shopping destinations.

But that will remain a dream — at least for the foreseeable future.

Anaheim city officials confirmed as much in an internal email about one of the news articles, noting to City Council members and the mayor that the permits were, in fact, for minor parking lot improvements within the existing Toy Story parking structure off Harbor Boulevard.

The email, which was reviewed by The Times, said the improvements were not related to an already-approved expansion of Disneyland Resort, or “what could ultimately be developed on the property in the future.”

A Disneyland spokesperson told me the permits are related to painting and striping at the Toy Story parking structure. So much for a third theme park.

It’s not the first time there’s been a hullabaloo about an additional park at Disneyland Resort.

In the early 1990s, there were serious talks about a Disneyland expansion called Westcot Center, a West Coast version of Walt Disney World’s Epcot in Florida. The plan at one point was to include three hotels, a public plaza and a number of retail, dining and entertainment options all around a central lake. At one point, both Anaheim and Long Beach were vying to be chosen as the site.

But that all collapsed in the mid-’90s amid financial concerns. Disney later built California Adventure, and briefly teased the idea of a third theme park complex with both a water park and amusement park that could complement the two-park resort. But that but never came to fruition.

The idea came up yet again about 10 years ago at an annual shareholders meeting in San Francisco, when former Chief Executive Bob Iger batted down speculation about a third park.

“We have plans at Disneyland for an expansion that we have not announced but those plans at the present do not include a third gate,” he said at the time.

More on that expansion later, but the truth is Disney simply doesn’t have enough land in Anaheim to build out a third theme park. I spoke with Len Testa, president of theme park travel site TouringPlans.com, who laid out the issues for me.

A third park would probably need a minimum of 80 to 120 acres of land to accommodate big new rides, as well as necessary behind-the-scenes facilities like employee break rooms and other back-of-the-house infrastructure.

“They’re landlocked,” he said. “And to acquire that land now in any way that would keep the campus centralized and avoid the logistics of a far-flung transportation network, that would be prohibitively expensive.”

That’s not to say that Disneyland Resort isn’t expanding on the land it does have.

Two years ago, Anaheim approved expansion plans for a project known as DisneylandForward, which will allow the company to build new attractions alongside shops, restaurants and hotels.

Development plans include a bigger Avengers campus with two new rides, as well as a “Coco” ride and “Avatar”-themed area in California Adventure, as well as a new parking structure.

Although it’s not a park, adding new lands and rides is “mission critical” for Disneyland Resort, Testa told me. After all, to drive attendance, you need to regularly open new attractions.

And these new rides can’t just be any old rides — they have to be “epic, mammoth blockbusters” that no one’s seen before, which takes time, space and money, he said.

Disneyland Paris is a good example. The European tourism resort saw a notable boost in attendance after it opened a World of “Frozen”-themed land in March.

“When you have that type of expansion and you can fill the park, you feel very, very good about that,” Disney Chief Financial Officer Hugh Johnston said last week at the MoffettNathanson media, internet and communications conference. “When we leverage our [intellectual property] and take that IP and build big new attractions, not little things … it’s these big new things that actually tend to just really bring in the consumers.”

That’s also key when you consider Disney’s growing competition from Universal Studios, which recently opened Epic Universe in Orlando and siphoned off some attendance from Walt Disney World.

And while the company’s TV and film business is vital, its theme parks still throw off most of the cash — new Disney CEO Josh D’Amaro recently called the parks the “physical centerpiece of the company.” And of course, they retain a deep link to Disney’s heritage.

As Walt himself noted, Disneyland is a “living” entity that would “never be finished.”

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

Lionsgate’s musical biopic “Michael” retook the top spot at the box office last weekend with a haul of $26.1 million in the U.S. and Canada.

The film, which chronicles the early career of singer Michael Jackson, has had remarkable staying power atop the charts since it debuted in late April. The film’s weekend revenue was down only 31% in North America compared with the previous weekend.

Overall, “Michael” has now made an estimated $703.9 million in worldwide box office revenue, with $421.1 million coming from international markets.

What I’m watching

Now that WNBA season is in full swing, I’ve been watching my L.A. Sparks and caught the game against the Toronto Tempo on Sunday. It was a rough game, but here’s hoping the Sparks can start turning things around, and quickly.

THE Beatles and the Rolling Stones both launched their latest albums yesterday – on separate continents. 

It was a case of let’s attend the knights together in honour of British rock royalty, Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Mick Jagger. 

At London’s fabled Abbey Road Studios, where the Fab Four recorded nearly all their songs, Macca held a lunchtime listening party for his latest LP, The Boys Of Dungeon Lane (out May 29). 

Then, in New York City hours later, Sixties chart rivals Jagger and Keith Richards as well as the later arrival to the ranks, Ronnie Wood, were seen strolling out of a Brooklyn theatre at the launch of their album, Foreign Tongues (out July 10). 

In a neat twist, Sir Paul plays bass on new Stones track Covered In You, recorded at the same session as his contribution to Bite My Head Off from 2023’s Hackney Diamonds. 

And BOTH albums were produced by American hotshot producer Andrew Watt, known for work with Ozzy Osbourne and Lady Gaga. 

END OF AN ERA?

Huge rock band spark SPLIT rumours after 14 years with cryptic video

NO CAP

Lewis Capaldi shocks fans as he drops the C-bomb in brutal takedown of troll

Before a select audience of fans and “my lovely son James” in Studio No2, McCartney, 83, introduced all fourteen tracks on his heartfelt 21st studio effort. 

For nearly two hours, he filled the time with fascinating anecdotes, playing select chords on his acoustic guitar and even mouthing some of the lyrics.  

Many songs have nostalgia-filled backstories, including As You Lie There about unrequited love for a girl called Jasmine. 

The “trippy” Mountain Top recalls Glastonbury, where he headlined in 2022, while Down South is about hitchhiking trips to Wales with George Harrison. 

Elsewhere, there’s a first-ever duet with fellow Beatle Ringo Starr on new single Home To Us, also featuring Chrissie Hynde and Sharleen Spiteri. Salesman Saint is a moving tribute to Macca’s parents, Jim and Mary. 

Meanwhile, the Stones also heralded their album with the release of a single, In The Stars, the follow-up to Rough & Twisted, a limited edition vinyl single which appeared under a pseudonym, The Cockroaches. 

Then Oscars host Conan O’Brien hosted a Q&A session with Mick and Keith, both 82, and Ronnie, 78. 

Besides McCartney, other guests on Foreign Tongues (also 14 songs) include The Cure’s Robert Smith on three tracks and Steve Winwood. 

Last year, studios and Hollywood labor unions lobbied hard to ensure animated movies and shows could compete for California’s expanded film and television tax credit program.

The payoff came last week, when three animated movies were among the nearly 40 film projects that received a production incentive in the latest round of awards, the California Film Commission announced Thursday.

Walt Disney Co.-owned 20th Century Studios received $21.9 million for “The Simpsons Movie 2,” Disney Entertainment Television got $3.5 million for “Phineas and Ferb” and DreamWorks Animation was awarded $24.7 million in credit allocation for a yet-untitled animated film.

The three are the first animated feature films to receive tax credits from the state of California. (Last month, two animated shows — a spin-off of “Rick and Morty” and “Stewie,” which branches off from the “Family Guy” cartoon — also received tax credits.)

I spoke with DreamWorks Animation Chief Operating Officer Randy Lake about the award, which he called a “potential game changer” for the Glendale-based studio known for the “Shrek” and “Kung Fu Panda” franchises.

“Unlike live-action, our projects are years long,” he said. “You’re talking about not just a job for six or nine months on set. It’s literally three or four years that these projects can take. It’s long-term employment.”

Like most of Hollywood, the animation industry has suffered from the effects of the 2023 dual writers’ and actors’ strikes, as well as the retrenchment in studio spending after the initial rush to invest in content for streaming services.

And like much of U.S. film and TV work — particularly in California — the animation business has been deeply affected by the increasingly rich tax credits offered by other countries.

Over the last 15 years, countries including Canada and Ireland have slowly built up animation hubs, aided by their local talent and lucrative production incentives specific to animation and visual effects.

For instance, visual effects and computer animation unit Sony Pictures Imageworks, which Lake ran for years, relocated its Culver City headquarters to Vancouver more than a decade ago.

DreamWorks, too, has outsourced work to partner studios, particularly in Vancouver and Montreal, as costs in the U.S. have increased and studios face pressure to rein in their production expenses while theatrical box-office revenue has become less reliable.

Just three years ago, DreamWorks cut about 70 jobs across its corporate functions, feature films, TV and technology departments. In 2024, Disney-owned computer animation studio Pixar laid off about 175 employees as it pulled back on its production of streaming series.

But with the recent tax credit allocation, DreamWorks will hire about 100 people in California for its upcoming untitled film. Those jobs would probably would have been outsourced to a third-party studio, Lake said. Keeping all of the jobs on that film in California helps improve collaboration among the teams and foster more creativity, he said. Today, DreamWorks has about 1,000 employees.

To understand why the new incentives are meaningful, consider that a DreamWorks Animation movie similar to the one that received the credit will typically have a crew of about 400 to 500 people.

That film is a big feature, though Lake declined to share details since the project hasn’t been announced.

Both the Animation Guild and studios have pointed to the incentive as a way to bring back animation jobs to the Golden State.

“Studios have been chasing animation tax credits in other states and countries for years, so it’s incredibly rewarding to see them use California’s for the very first time,” Marissa Bernstel, a trustee on the union’s executive board and member of the task force that helped lobby for the expanded production incentives, said in a statement last week. “The results feel very real, and I’m excited to see what future employment opportunities the incentive inspires.”

Lake said DreamWorks hopes to take advantage of the state incentives for all of its full-budget films.

“We’ll be applying for the next window,” he said, adding that he hoped they will be successful so “we’ll be able to have more and more of our films be fully produced in state. That’s the goal.”

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

Lionsgate’s “Michael” had a massive opening weekend with just over $217 million in global box-office revenue. In the U.S. and Canada, the Michael Jackson biopic hauled in about $97 million, far surpassing studio expectations.

The film, which stars Jackson’s nephew, Jaafar Jackson, as the late singer, chronicles the pop star’s rise from his early days in the Jackson 5 through the growth of his solo career. The movie ends in 1988 while Jackson is on tour for his hit album “Bad.”

The premiere for “Michael” marks the biggest domestic opening for any biopic, musical or otherwise. The 2015 movie “Straight Outta Compton” previously held the record for highest opening weekend total for a musical biopic, with $60 million in the U.S. and Canada, followed by the Queen biopic “Bohemian Rhapsody” in 2018, which had a $51.1-million domestic opening.

Critics’ reviews of “Michael,” however, were largely negative. Many noted the plot sidesteps the child sexual abuse allegations against Jackson and said the film presents a more one-dimensional view of the singer.

An earlier cut of the film did end in 1993 and addressed the allegations, but that ending had to be scrapped due to a clause in a legal settlement with an accuser that stipulated he could never be pictured or mentioned in a dramatization of Jackson’s life. Jackson and his estate have denied that the pop star abused children.

What I’m watching

I finally finished the Hulu series “Paradise” this last week, which kept me guessing about literally everything all the way until the end. I’m interested in seeing where this genre-morphing show goes next season.

Amid the bustle and glitz of last week’s CinemaCon in Las Vegas, one question loomed over the annual trade convention — how will the proposed Paramount Skydance-Warner Bros. Discovery deal affect the movie theater business?

That anxiety showed up in a state of the industry speech from Cinema United trade group President Michael O’Leary, who reiterated his organization’s opposition to further industry consolidation.

It showed up in a trailer for Amazon MGM Studios’ upcoming film “Spaceballs: The New One,” when a voiceover poked fun at Hollywood studios “merging willy-nilly” as images of the Paramount sign and Warner Bros. water tower flashed across the screen.

And the subject again took center stage — literally — when Paramount Chief Executive David Ellison himself gave a speech during his studio’s presentation at Caesars Palace. He sought to reassure the assembled movie theater operators and exhibition executives that the combined company would indeed release a minimum of 30 films a year.

“I wanted to look every single one of you in the eye and give you my word,” he said during an onstage speech, in which he also committed to a 45-day theatrical window and 90-day period before films go to streaming services. “People can speculate all they want, but I am standing here today telling you personally that you can count on our complete commitment. And we’ll show you we mean it.”

It’s true that Paramount has nearly doubled its theatrical releases since Ellison took over. As he noted in his speech, the storied studio is now planning 15 films this year, up from eight in 2025.

But as I’ve written previously, theater owners and other studio executives question how releasing 30 movies a year across the combined Paramount-Warner Bros. would work — not only in terms of giving each film the proper marketing campaign to succeed in theaters but also because of the massive cost cuts that will inevitably occur once the merger is final.

Still, Ellison’s commitment to 30 films a year got a round of enthusiastic applause — and at least one high-profile boost.

A day earlier, AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Adam Aron told me in an interview that he backed Ellison’s takeover of Warner, saying he and AMC believed in the tech scion’s talent as a filmmaker and a movie executive, as well as his pledge to release those 30 films a year.

“We’re enthusiastic that David will fulfill his promises,” Aron said. “And that in the end, this will prove to be a good thing for our company and our industry.”

Not everyone shares that enthusiasm.

More than 4,000 people have now signed an open letter opposing the Paramount-Warner deal, arguing that consolidating two studios will lessen consumer choice and job opportunities for creatives, particularly at a time when Hollywood is already struggling. (Notable signatories include “Dune” director Denis Villeneuve, actors Glenn Close and Emma Thompson, as well as director and producer JJ Abrams.)

O’Leary of Cinema United similarly wasn’t convinced.

“While recent pledges attempt to address the threats of consolidation to our industry, they are not yet sufficient in addressing our concerns,” he said in a statement released hours after Ellison’s speech. “We remain open to tangible commitments that will ensure a vibrant global theatrical exhibition industry for years to come.”

Elsewhere at CinemaCon, the mood was upbeat.

Warner Bros. film chiefs Mike De Luca and Pam Abdy struck a triumphant tone after an award-winning year for the studio, capped off by the best picture win for “One Battle After Another.”

They unveiled footage from new films like the upcoming “Digger” from director Alejandro G. Iñárritu and brought out lead actor Tom Cruise to a sustained standing ovation from the audience. And both De Luca and Abdy espoused optimism for the future of the theatrical business. The studio plans to release 14 films this year and as many as 18 for 2027.

“The film business has always required smart betting, and we have 4 billion reasons from last year to think we’re holding the right cards,” De Luca said during the presentation, referring to the studio’s worldwide box office revenue last year.

“We all know they’re not all going to work. That comes with taking swings,” Abdy said of the studios’ films. “There’s no version of this business that’s risk-free. But our job is to step up, make our bets and own it when it doesn’t work.”

But the end of the presentation felt more somber, with the executives asking the heads of Warner Bros.’ labels to come to the stage and be recognized. Shortly after, they asked Warner Bros. employees in the audience to stand for applause. It was hard to escape the feeling that this may be the end of an era.

Stuff We Wrote

Film shoots

Number of the week

1,000

Last week, Walt Disney Co. began a sweeping round of layoffs that’s expected to cull 1,000 jobs across multiple divisions.

As my colleague Meg James reported, the cuts hit Disney’s television and movie studios, sports giant ESPN, its product and technology unit, corporate functions and marketing. Even Marvel Studios’ visual development team was affected.

The layoffs are one of the first major moves under new Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro, who took the reins of the company last month. In a message to employees, he said the company needed to “constantly assess how to foster a more agile and technologically-enabled workforce to meet tomorrow’s needs.”

What I’m watching

Some friends and I watched “Fukushima: A Nuclear Nightmare” this past weekend, a truly eye-opening documentary that explains what happened during the March 11, 2011, nuclear accident and whether the world has learned anything from it.

By early 1963, the Station Hotel in London had become an epicenter of the burgeoning British blues scene. On a blustery, snowy night that February, the Rolling Stones’ classic early lineup took the stage for one of the first times, dazzling the audience with ferocious renditions of blues standards like Muddy Waters’ “I Want to Be Loved” and Jimmy Reed’s “Bright Lights, Big City.”

Multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones, the band’s founder and leader, synchronized guitars with Keith Richards, who favored a distinctive slashing and stinging style. Drummer Charlie Watts, the group’s newest member, a jazz aficionado and an accomplished percussionist, propelled the music forward with a rock-solid beat.

Anchoring the rhythm section with him was bassist Bill Wyman, who was recruited more for his spare VOX AC30 amp that the guitarists could plug into than for his musical skills. The stoic bassist proved a strong and innovative player. Together, he and Watts would go on to form one of rock’s most decorated rhythm sections.

Ian Stewart’s energetic boogie-woogie piano style rounded out the sound. Months later, manager Andrew Loog Oldham kicked him out of the band for being “ugly,” although Stewart continued to record, tour and serve as the band’s road manager until his death in 1985.

This April 8, 1964, file photo shows the Rolling Stones during a rehearsal. The members, from left, are Brian Jones, guitar; Bill Wyman, bass; Charlie Watts, drums; Mick Jagger, vocals; and Keith Richards, guitar.

(Associated Press)

Fronting the group was Mick Jagger. Channeling the music like a crazed shaman, Jagger shimmied and sashayed, owning the stage like few lead singers have before or since. By the end of the night, the Stones had the crowd in a frenzy. Although only 30 people had made it to the gig because of the treacherous weather conditions, the hotel’s booker had seen enough: He offered the Stones a regular gig.

“The Rolling Stones had caught fire. The music they were playing and the way they played it struck a chord with a young crowd starved for something different, something their own… It was soul-stirring, loud and uncompromising,” writes Bob Spitz in “The Rolling Stones: The Biography,” his magisterial work that charts the 60-year journey of “the greatest rock and roll band in the world.”

Spitz, the author of strong biographies on the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, as well as Ronald Reagan and Julia Child, captures the drama, trauma and betrayals that have kept the Stones in the public’s consciousness for more than six decades. It’s all here: The Stones’ evolution from a blues cover band to artistic rival of the Beatles; the musical peaks — “Aftermath,” “Let It Bleed” and “Exile on Main Street” as well as misfires like “Dirty Work”; Keith’s descent into a debilitating heroin addiction that nearly destroyed him and the band; the death of the ‘60s at the ill-fated Altamont free concert; Marianne Faithfull, Anita Pallenberg, Bianca Jagger, Jerry Hall and other lovers, partners and muses; the breakups, makeups and crackups; and perhaps most important, the unbreakable bond between Jagger and Richards at the center of it all.

Although Spitz unearths little new information, he excels at presenting the Stones in glorious Technicolor. Spitz homes in on the telling details and anecdotes that give the band’s story a deep richness and poignancy.

Take “Satisfaction,” the Stones’ 1965 classic and first U.S. chart topper. The oft-told story is that Richards woke up in the middle of the night, grabbed the guitar that was next to his bed, and recorded the iconic riff and the phrase “I can’t get no … satisfaction” on a cassette recorder in his Clearwater, Fla., hotel room before falling back asleep. But as Spitz notes, the song initially went nowhere in the studio. That is until Stewart purchased a fuzz box for Richards a few days later, which gave the tune a raunchier sound that perfectly matched Jagger’s lyrics of frustration and alienation. A classic was born.

Piercing the Stones mythology

Spitz’s deep reporting often pierces the mythology surrounding the band. Contrary to the popular belief of many fans, for instance, Jones bears much of the responsibility for the rift with his bandmates and his tragic demise.

The most musically adventurous member of the group — he plays sitar on “Paint It Black” and dulcimer on “Lady Jane” — Jones wasn’t a songwriter. That stoked his jealousies and insecurities, along with frontman Jagger stealing the spotlight from him. A monster of a man, Jones impregnated multiple teenage girls and physically and emotionally abused several women, including Pallenberg. Perhaps that’s why she left him for Richards. Over time, Jones made fewer contributions in the studio and onstage, becoming a catatonic drug casualty. The Stones fired Jones in June 1969 but would have been justified doing so a couple years earlier. He drowned in his pool less than a month later.

Author Bob Spitz

(Elena Seibert)

Similarly, Stones lore has long romanticized the making of “Exile on Main Street” in the stifling, dingy basement of Richards’ rented Villa Nellcôte in the South of France, where the Stones had decamped to avoid British taxes. In this telling, Richards, deep in the throes of heroin addiction, somehow managed to come up with one indelible riff after another built around his signature open G tuning — taught to him by Ry Cooder — leading the band to create one of the best albums in rock history. That’s not entirely accurate, according to Spitz.

Yes, Richards came up with the licks for “Rocks Off,” “Happy” and “Tumbling Dice.” But it’s equally true that a strung-out Richards missed myriad recording sessions, invited dealers, hangers-on and other distractions to Nellcôte, and repeatedly failed to turn up to write with Jagger. Far from completing the album in the druggy haze of a French basement, the band spent six months on overdubs at Sunset Sound in Los Angeles, where Jagger contributed many of his vocals.

Beatles vs. Stones

One of the more interesting themes Spitz develops is the symbiotic relationship between the Beatles and Stones, with the Fab Four mostly overshadowing them — until they didn’t.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote “I Wanna Be Your Man” and gave it to the Stones, whose 1963 rendition, with Jones on slide guitar, became the group’s first UK Top 20 hit. The Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership inspired Jagger and Richards to begin penning their own songs. In early 1964, the Beatles came to the U.S. for the first time, making television history with their appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” and playing Carnegie Hall. A few months later, the Stones kicked off their inaugural American tour at the Swing Auditorium in San Bernardino. In 1967, the Beatles released “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” a psychedelic masterpiece. The Stones responded with “Their Satanic Majesties Request,” a psychedelic mess.

The Rolling Stones: The Biography cover

As the Beatles began to splinter, Spitz writes, the Stones sharpened their focus. The band released “Beggars Banquet” in late 1968 and “Let It Bleed” the following year, albums every bit as innovative and visionary as “The White Album” and “Abbey Road.” For the first time, the two groups stood as equals.

When the Beatles broke up in 1970, the Stones kept rolling. With Jones replaced by virtuoso guitarist Mick Taylor — whose fluid, melodic style served as a tasty foil to Richards — they produced what many consider their finest works, “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile on Main Street.” More impressively, the band, with Taylor’s successor, Ronnie Wood, has continued to dazzle audiences with incendiary live shows, touring as recently as 2024 behind the late-career triumph “Hackney Diamonds.” The Beatles, by contrast, retired from the road in 1966 and devoted their energies to the studio.

Hundreds of books have been written about the Rolling Stones, but few sparkle quite like Spitz’s. For anyone who loves or even likes the Stones, it’s indispensable.

Like most of the band’s biographers, Spitz gives short shrift to the post-“Exile” period after 1972. He curtly dismisses 2005’s strong “A Bigger Bang” and 2016’s “Blue & Lonesome,” a back-to-basics album of blues covers, as “adequate endeavors that signaled a band living on borrowed time.” That critique is both off target and under-developed. Spitz ignores the band’s legendary live album, “Brussels Affair,” recorded in 1973, or why the band waited decades before officially releasing it.

These are small quibbles. Spitz has written a book worthy of its 704-page length; another 50 or so pages covering the later years would have made it even stronger. To quote the Rolling Stones: “I know it’s only rock ‘n roll, but I like it, like it, yes, I do.”

Marc Ballon, a former Times, Forbes and Inc. Magazine reporter, teaches an advanced writing class at USC. He lives in Fullerton.