A Spirited Perfect Ten

[Mike S]

My main concern for this project is that they pick the right writer/director. Part of the reason the prequels and Crystal Skull sucked, aside from George only doing one draft per film, is the lack of connection to their inspirations; Sci-Fi serials and pulp novels. I'm hoping Lucasfilm can land Iron Man Three writer director Shane Black, who has a great affinity for pulps as well as being one of the best screenwriters in Hollywood. Unfortunately he is currently developing a film based on the classic pulp character Doctor Savage at Sony, but as we know know with Bob Iger's Disney, anyone can be bought.

Also, here is your recommendation/reminder that you need to watch Shane's 2005 film "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" starring a recently sobered up Robert Downey Jr. and @lebeau 's favorite Val Kimer. It's an excellent film that was able to give RDJ the opportunity to be cast as Tony Stark and shows you solid "Hollywood" movies can be made for relatively little money.

But, Iron Man 3 stunk.

 

[BrerJon]

What artifact would they have him go after I wonder.

Bob Iger's creativity?

 

[the.dreamfinder]

But, Iron Man 3 stunk.

 

[ford91exploder]

Bob Iger's creativity?

That never existed in the first place...

The City of Gold ... that works this time without the aliens, just the GOLD.

 

[ford91exploder]

This tidbit from the recently released 2014 annual report should interest everyone:

I wish I could give you a glimpse of the amazing wonders we’re bringing to life for our guests – especially in our new park in Shanghai and expansion in Orlando -- but it’s simply too soon to share. All I can say right now is: prepare to be even more amazed.​

What a tease.

I thought the 'expansion' was Disney Springs

 

[Quinnmac000]

I get the appeal of Iger but brand buying is lame. Instead of great family comedies and movies in the day like Jungle 2 Jungle, Tom and Huck, Mighty Joe Young and The Parent's trap which happened under Eisner...we are getting pretty much action films and princess with not good live action family features like that Alexander nots so good day etc.

I mean Remember the Titans, Honey I shrunk the kids, those were the good days.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I get the appeal of Iger but brand buying is lame. Instead of great family comedies and movies in the day like Jungle 2 Jungle, Tom and Huck, Mighty Joe Young and The Parent's trap which happened under Eisner...we are getting pretty much action films and princess with not good live action family features like that Alexander nots so good day etc.

I mean Remember the Titans, Honey I shrunk the kids, those were the good days.

Jungle 2 Jungle and Tom and Huck were good comedies?

Heavyweights was a great comedy.

Those aren't.

Eisner had plenty of examples of producing some of the worst comedies of their respective years, i.e., Blank Check, Man of the House, Operation Dumbo Drop, The Big Green, First Kid, That Darn Cat, Mr. Magoo, Flubber, Meet the Deedles, I'll Be Home for Christmas, My Favorite Martian, Inspector Gadget, Disney's The Kid, Max Keeble's Big Move, Snow Dogs, The Country Bears, The Haunted Mansion, Confessions of a Teenage Drama Queen, Around the World in 80 Days, The Princess Diaries 2, and The Pacifier.

 

[Rutt]

Why not - the computer models are already built and ready to use, Just change the palette a bit and you have saved MILLIONS on production costs. And because you are using the PROVEN Frozen characters Moana (i.e. tan Elsa) will be just as big a success as was Frozen.

I'm trying to figure out what Olaf can be - perhaps a rock spirit... Sven much harder problem as large quadrupeds are not common in the South Pacific...

I don't get stuff like this, I mean, it's not like this is recent.

Are Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Belle mind blowingly different?

A lot of Disneys characters were very similar before cgi. A lot of the stories were and are very repetitive.

It's tried and true. And has been the same for years and years.

To me, Moana looks no more like Elsa than Elsa does Anna does Rapunzel.

Some people are just so jaded, it's kinda sad. Bad bad Disney!

 

[Rutt]

I get the appeal of Iger but brand buying is lame. Instead of great family comedies and movies in the day like Jungle 2 Jungle, Tom and Huck, Mighty Joe Young and The Parent's trap which happened under Eisner...we are getting pretty much action films and princess with not good live action family features like that Alexander nots so good day etc.

I mean Remember the Titans, Honey I shrunk the kids, those were the good days.

This I agree with, Disney has built some great brands. That being said, they've always kinda lagged behind with the boy stuff.

 

[lebeau]

My main concern for this project is that they pick the right writer/director. Part of the reason the prequels and Crystal Skull sucked, aside from George only doing one draft per film, is the lack of connection to their inspirations; Sci-Fi serials and pulp novels. I'm hoping Lucasfilm can land Iron Man Three writer director Shane Black, who has a great affinity for pulps as well as being one of the best screenwriters in Hollywood. Unfortunately he is currently developing a film based on the classic pulp character Doctor Savage at Sony, but as we know know with Bob Iger's Disney, anyone can be bought.

Also, here is your recommendation/reminder that you need to watch Shane's 2005 film "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" starring a recently sobered up Robert Downey Jr. and @lebeau 's favorite Val Kimer. It's an excellent film that was able to give RDJ the opportunity to be cast as Tony Stark and shows you solid "Hollywood" movies can be made for relatively little money.

I second the Kiss Kiss Bang Bang recommendation. It's one of the better films RDJ ever made. And Kilmer owns in it.

 

[lebeau]

But, Iron Man 3 stunk.

I'm with you. RDJ makes it watchable but it's not a good movie.

 

[doctornick]

This I agree with, Disney has built some great brands. That being said, they've always kinda lagged behind with the boy stuff.

I don't think that's really true. Outside of a few films, most of what we historically think of as "Disney" is pretty gender neutral: Mickey and friends, Dumbo, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Bambi, Jungle Book, Winnie the Pooh, etc. Even among more modern Disney movies, stuff like Lion King, Aladdin, Tarzan, Hunchback, Hercules aren't really "girly".

To be honest, even old princess movies were pretty neutral: Snow White had the dwarfs and little romance/royal princess type stuff. Sleeping Beauty featured the prince a lot including getting into a castle with thorns and a battle with a dragon. Cinderella I'd grant, maybe the romance of Lady & the Tramp. But you could argue some movies like Sword in the Stone and Robin Hood, maybe Peter Pan are more "boy" focused too. It seems pretty balanced overall to be honest.

It's the parks and the BBB type stuff they sell were being girl centric has come out.

 

[lebeau]

Excalibur, Spear of Destiny...lots of possibilities.

I never understood the importance placed on the artifact Indy searches for. As a kid, I had never heard of the Ark of the Covenant. Make something up. Who would care? The artifact is a McGuffin anyway.

 

[ford91exploder]

I don't get stuff like this, I mean, it's not like this is recent.

Are Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Belle mind blowingly different?

A lot of Disneys characters were very similar before cgi. A lot of the stories were and are very repetitive.

It's tried and true. And has been the same for years and years.

To me, Moana looks no more like Elsa than Elsa does Anna does Rapunzel.

Some people are just so jaded, it's kinda sad. Bad bad Disney!

Unlike many on here I'm NOT a BRAND advocate, So Disney does not get a pass for creative bankruptcy like this Cuz ITS DIZNEEE yayyy.

Using Photoshop or something similar take the Moana artwork and make it a layer and take Elsa and make it another layer - rotate and scale in 3D and compare, Result - NO DIFFERENCE in the character or their features just the color palette.

Yes all Princess stories are somewhat alike and they have been since the time of the travelling Bard's,

It's just IF this artwork IS genuine this is just cloning the character and changing colors a bit, Mainly because the ORIGINAL character was a huge financial success. This just shows the creative bankruptcy which is epidemic at Disney.

Oh and in search of 'Synergy' one of the stores at the Poly used to be 'Notes from civilization' and heavily themed now it's generic and called, wait for it 'Moana's Merchandise' one would have to be a blind rat to not see THAT one coming.

 

[lebeau]

I don't think that's really true. Outside of a few films, most of what we historically think of as "Disney" is pretty gender neutral: Mickey and friends, Dumbo, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, Bambi, Jungle Book, Winnie the Pooh, etc. Even among more modern Disney movies, stuff like Lion King, Aladdin, Tarzan, Hunchback, Hercules aren't really "girly".

To be honest, even old princess movies were pretty neutral: Snow White had the dwarfs and little romance/royal princess type stuff. Sleeping Beauty featured the prince a lot including getting into a castle with thorns and a battle with a dragon. Cinderella I'd grant, maybe the romance of Lady & the Tramp. But you could argue some movies like Sword in the Stone and Robin Hood, maybe Peter Pan are more "boy" focused too. It seems pretty balanced overall to be honest.

It's the parks and the BBB type stuff they sell were being girl centric has come out.

The idea that princess movies are just for girls is a recent phenomenon. When I was a kid, Disney movies were all viewed as gender neutral. Even if they had female protagonists.

 

[Phil12]

What artifact would they have him go after I wonder.

 

[lebeau]

Indiana Jones and the BAH of Doom.

 

[flynnibus]

Eisner had plenty of examples of producing some of the worst comedies of their respective years

.. but at least under the Singles and Doubles theory of studio production... none of those stinkers put the larger company at risk on their own. Unlike the 'need to make 800m to break even..' films they huddle the studio around now.

 

[lebeau]

.. but at least under the Singles and Doubles theory of studio production... none of those stinkers put the larger company at risk on their own. Unlike the 'need to make 800m to break even..' films they huddle the studio around now.

That sums up so much of what is currently wrong at the studios these days. Not just Disney. But Disney is leading the headlong charge into industry collapse.

 

[Tony Perkis]

.. but at least under the Singles and Doubles theory of studio production... none of those stinkers put the larger company at risk on their own. Unlike the 'need to make 800m to break even..' films they huddle the studio around now.

Different day, different age. Eisner didn't have to compete with TV, streaming, and piracy. Iger does. They have to persuade the moviegoing audience to pay $10 for a movie ticket and even more for concessions. Big blockbusters and spectacles are able to accomplish this. Anomalies aside, small family films have to compete against too many home entertainment variables.