Spirited News, Observations & Thoughts Tres

Status
Not open for further replies.

stevehousse

Well-Known Member
Just got back from DM2 with the fam, we all liked it very much! We watched the first one this morning before we went btw.

My kids (boys age 5 and 2) both loved it! This was the 2 year olds first movie in a theater too and he did so well! The whole theater applauded at the end, which was very sweet how the movie ended!

Now my 2 year old wont stop walking around the house saying, " BEEDO BEEDO BEEDO"!!! Anyone whose seen the movie will know what I am talking about!
 

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/07/06/the-mouse-eats-itself/
When The Lone Ranger came out July 3, it was a rarity: a Walt Disney movie actually produced by the Disney company. The reboot of the classic masked hero, starring Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer, is one of the relatively few Disney movies produced by the company’s own staff. “For the time being, in-house production—content that might be considered ‘pure’ Disney brand—is at a low ebb for the studio,” says Jeff Gomez, a media analyst and CEO of Starlight Runner Entertainment. Instead, the company’s release slate will focus on franchises it bought, such as the Marvel movies, the Pixar animated films, Star Wars, and even the Muppets. Disney’s first priority has to be optimizing its relationships with Pixar, Marvel and Lucasfilm, Gomez points out. The most distinctive studio in Hollywood, which stood for a certain type of family entertainment, may no longer have a style of its own.

This decline happened only a few years after Disney was announcing a return to the style of its glory days, so suddenly that some staff members went almost instantly from euphoria to unemployment. Frans Vischer, who worked on such Disney hits as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, was one of several animators who rejoined Disney after it merged with Pixar in 2006, believing the company’s proclamations that it was about to bring back its classic brand of hand-drawn animated family movies. “I thought, ‘Okay, now they’re going to become a real animation studio again,’ ” he says. He was one of the animators laid off a few months ago, as the company shut down most of its traditional hand-drawn animated production.


The company still has had a few in-house successes, like this year’s The Great and Powerful Oz and the 3D Wreck-It Ralph. But many of its other projects have been disasters, like the 3D kids movie Mars Needs Moms, or the science fiction adventure John Carter. Seeing the bigger returns from outside projects, the studio has announced that it’s going to be making fewer of its own movies, and has begun cancelling projects. A stop-motion animation project from Henry Selick, director of the studio’s ’90s hit The Nightmare Before Christmas, was axed after a long and expensive development process, leaving the director and producers to try and raise money overseas. “I don’t know what shape that was in,” Vischer says. “They may have had legitimate reasons if it had big story problems. But I just feel like all the variety is going out of Disney.”

It’s a far cry from the optimism of a few years ago. John Lasseter, the founder of Pixar who was placed in charge of both his own studio and Disney’s animation department, announced that he intended to revive the Disney brand with movies like the hand-drawn musical The Princess and the Frog. Vischer says animators were thrilled at the idea of having “Lasseter, who was a filmmaker, in charge.” Instead, Pixar has become more of the corporate behemoth Disney used to be, with more direct-to-video production and more emphasis on easily merchandisable franchise films such as Toy Story and Cars.

It’s not hard to see why the attempt to restore the Disney style fizzled out so quickly. “The large grosses weren’t there,” says Steve Hullett, business representative for the Animation Guild. “Princess and the Frog made $300 million worldwide,” a good total but not much compared to a Pixar movie, and the company’s final hand-drawn production, a new Winnie the Pooh film, “was pretty much a bust. Not hard for Disney to make its choice over which format to use.” Not that computer animation has been a panacea for Disney: its computerized film Tangled had higher grosses, but that film went through so many changes in development, including new directors, that some think it did even worse than the hand-drawn Princess relative to its cost. Even in television, Gomez sees “something of a creative malaise,” with the Disney channel producing few breakout hits. “We’re seeing fewer Disney characters on backpacks and lunchboxes, when last decade schools were flooded with imagery from High School Musical, Hannah Montana and Wizards of Waverly Place.”

Disney may have found that outside franchises are more efficient money-making machines—and it seems disappointed when its in-house films don’t match up. “Any company that goes through a huge boom of success goes through that,” says Tom Bancroft, an animator who worked on The Lion King, who recalls a similar impatience in the ’90s. “There was a disappointment in everything after Lion King, but 10 years before we would have been thrilled with those numbers.”

And the collapse of the home video market means that Disney cartoons no longer have a guaranteed way of making back their costs.

Part of Disney’s problem is that the company may have been too concerned about preserving its historic brand—including the now-fading princess line. Traditional animators had hoped Disney’s return to the format would prove that 2D animation could do something new and exciting. Instead, what we got was The Princess and the Frog, a fairy tale with “princess” right there in its title; not only was the name blamed for driving away male viewers, but it came off to many as a blatant attempt to find something new to merchandise. “I’m sure consumer products wanted a princess to sell the toys,” Vischer says. “I think that’s fine, but you need a film that’s really good on its own before you think about how to sell toys.”

Bancroft adds that The Princess and the Frog didn’t prove the continued viability of classic-style animation: “There were only a few scenes you can look at and say, ‘That’s classic Disney in a good way.’ There was a lot of classic Disney in a bad way.” The end result was the collapse of traditional Disney animation, and a lot of former animators who wished they had been given a chance to take more chances: “I wish that Princess and the Frog had had a bolder look and tried to show the world that this isn’t something you have at home on video or DVD,” Vischer says. “I wish it was a little more daring.” After that disappointment, the company has occasionally paid tributes to its roots; the short cartoon Paperman starred a hero who looked almost exactly like the human star of 101 Dalmatians, and paired him with a woman who looked a bit like the Little Mermaid. But for the most part, Disney now seems to act as if classic Disney style isn’t good box office. Its next animated project is Frozen, a movie with the same fairy-tale style as Tangled and a 3D animation style that apes Pixar and Dreamworks; even Disney movies don’t want to seem too much like Disney.

Still, Gomez points out all this doesn’t necessarily mean the end of a distinctive Disney style. The company’s in-house work might start up again once it has learned to “adjust to a system where a significant amount of content is flowing into the core from newly acquired divisions.” Even hand-drawn animators, the ones with the fewest prospects, see a glimmer of hope from the recent Academy Award for Paperman, which used new computer techniques to replicate the style of hand-drawn animation. Vischer, one of the traditional animators who did some work on the film, says it proved you can “create new styles that are different both from CG and from what 2D has done in the past,” and it showed how the old Disney style could be replicated in the computer world.

Even if Disney winds up as a distribution house, it might not be out of line with tradition: it’s similar to the status Disney had in its ’30s and ’40s prime, when movies like Dumbo were released through big studios that had nothing to do with the product.

But some people will miss the tradition that Walt Disney created—people who have animated for Disney, and people who aspire to. “I feel like the latest news of layoffs has shaken up a lot of animators, especially students,” says Bobby Chiu, founder of Toronto’s Imaginism Studios. “They’re all a little nervous.” And of course so will some fans. While a future dominated by Star Wars and Iron Man might make Disney more profitable, it could also mean a future where Disney releases movies that could have been made by any studio—and in many cases, used to be made by other studios. In the Lion King era, Disney was the studio that every company tried in vain to rip off. But today, “the average person can’t tell the difference between a Disney movie and a DreamWorks movie, or even a Sony movie,” says Bancroft. “I think it’s a nice place to work,” Vischer now says when asked if Disney has its own special qualities. “It’s comfortable and all that. But it’s probably very similar to other studios.”
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Maybe you already have answered this and if so just refer me to the post. But why even greenlight the film if you want to set the movie up to fail? Because it failed Disney now has to take a beating from the media, has to write it off, the stock may be impacted, etc. How do they benefit from doing that? Wouldn't it have been easier to just cancel it during preproduction? (Which at one or two points they actually did to cut the budget)


I don't get it either. What movie company would want ANY of its movies to fail? Now, I will say that, in this case, I could see why Iger MIGHT not care as much as he would if the film were connected to one of his purchases, like Marvel, but still, a loss is a loss, money is money...
 

SirLink

Well-Known Member
Personally, I don't feel that The Lone Ranger was another John Carter in the regard that Disney destined it to fail, but rather is now the blame game being played as no one wants to be held accountable. I don't buy the reports I've seen that there was a conceited effort within Disney to doom the project. The documented history of the film speaks for itself--and in that regard alone it should be no surprise to anyone that there might have been some individuals at Disney who were less than enthusiastic about the project and possibly didn't give it their all to make it a success. Hollywood egos being what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a certain amount of this on most projects.

The larger part of the problem here is that this film has received 121 negative reviews from independent critics (that's far worse than John Carter). Some of these reviews may be a result of laziness or reviewing the film simply based on the names attached, but not all of them--or even the majority of them. Contrasting the audience score to the critics' score is no indication of sabotage--it happens all the time with blockbusters of this sort, and certainly Bruckheimer is no stranger to it.

As for some specifics:
  • Calling a film bloated doesn't necessarily have to do with attention spans. I think TLR was bloated, but Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia are two of my favorite movies, and I don't feel that way about either of them. It's all about what you do with your run-time.
  • I thought TLR was pretty violent for a PG-13 film, but I only mention that in juxtaposition to the (attempts at) humor. I like violent films...
  • The "humor" is what really sinks the ship for me. I flat out did not find this movie funny, and thought many of the "jokes" either stalled action or were cringe-worthy.
  • The framed-story element was pointless.
  • The movie has no tone--it jumps all over the place in terms of storytelling.
  • The last 30 (or so) minutes of the film are just flat out fun. I disagree with any criticism of the end...
As I've said previously, I think there is a solid popcorn movie under the surface despite these criticisms, but I just didn't find the finished product to be that. I hope that it grows legs through positive word of mouth, as I think there's more to tell here, and I think if given the chance, they could really hit their stride with a sequel.

Reasonable minds may differ, though. I can understand how people might like TLR as-is, and I don't begrudge anyone for that.

That may be because before the film was cancelled - if memory serves my old brain right -it was more super natural. Whilst the film is fine for a modern western, its boring. It needed that heavy handed mysticism of the original plot they were working towards and not damn trains.
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
Isn't the Walt of Disney already gone?
The official name of the company is still thankfully "The Walt Disney Company" however they have removed Walt's name from the title cards in front of the movies and nearly all official branding instances so removing his name from the company is not as absurd a concept as it used to be.
 

Figments Friend

Well-Known Member
Maybe people are staying closer to home this year or they finally figured out that coming to FL in the summer sucks. :D

Well it took them long enough....

Shhh! Keep your voice down...don*t let them hear you!
Let them go in the Summer.....and sweat it out...and get completely knackered.

It will leave more space for us in the Parks during the cooler *off-seasons*....!

:D
 

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
I personally Liked At worlds End A lot. I felt the Pirates 2 was the worst of the original 3. It was just a mid story that didn't really solve any mysteries or give away anything. Pirates 3 finished the first story perfectly and I think Pirates 4 would have been better if ALL the original cast came back....But they didn't!


I really liked "Dead Man's Chest." I loved the half-sea-creature, half-human crew of The Flying Dutchman. I loved Davy Jones, and I really loved the ending - oh, the angst! It was reminiscent of the ending of "The Empire Strikes Back" - in both, a favorite character is endangered, and you have to see the next film to find out what happens to them. Too bad that in both cases, the next film was underwhelming...
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
I don't get it either. What movie company would want ANY of its movies to fail? Now, I will say that, in this case, I could see why Iger MIGHT not care as much as he would if the film were connected to one of his purchases, like Marvel, but still, a loss is a loss, money is money...
Well, it helps if you either really don't care or the loss fulfills a certain personal agenda and you can't make me believe for a minute that Iger would put what is good for the company over his own agenda. It's no different than Michael Eisner's feud with Steve Jobs/Pixar. If Eisner's ego prevented the Disney/Pixar relationship ended despite the mutual benefits entailed If continuing meant Eisner having to continue to deal with Steve Jobs , Eisner would have preferred to end it, Thankfully Save Disney happened and that never hit the fan. That said, I don't know what Iger's issue with Bruckheimer is though I suspect Prince of Persia plus the Royce Matthew lawsuit situation might be involved. The basic point I am making here is that to people like Iger and many in the American Business world everything is basically a high-stakes gambling game, If Iger loses a relatively small amount of money but still benefits personally in some way from the fallout he will take that risk because unlike Eisner he has the ear of Wall Street and the stockholders and when all is said and done he will still be living handsomely and counting his riches while the Once cherished institution he was entrusted with will be left to pick up the pieces of any public perception damage he has wrought upon this once great company.
 

stevehousse

Well-Known Member
Speaking of upcoming films, Disney marketing seems to be trying to mislead folks into thinking Frozen had nothing to do with a fairy tale whatsoever, which couldn't befurther from the truth! Maybe trying to trick little boys into the theater?

That US trailer shows no aspect of what the movie is about! If I didn't already know Frozen was a Snow Queen adaptation, I would think that it was all about that snowman and moose going on an adventure?!?

The Japanese version should have been used as the US trailer! Even if you can't even understand what they are saying, that trailer makes the movie look so much better and I can't wait to see it! Hope they release that trailer in English soon!

It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever!
 

Figments Friend

Well-Known Member
Can't wait to hear. While we're waiting, anyone want to comment on the newest extension of the Disney PrincessTM(R)(C)SM brand?

tumblr_mp312el9hP1rl4bn4o1_1280.png


I wish to God this was fake. This fall, DCP is launching Disney Princess Palace Pets. Top row L - R: Ariel's kitty Treasure, Rapunzel's pony Blondie, Snow's bunny Berry. Bottom row L - R: Cinderella's puppy Pumpkin, Belle's puppy Teacup and Aurora's kitty Beauty. Not pictured is Mulan's panda, Blossom.

I can't even.

A bit late to the party...just seeing this now.
( gasps in disbelief )

What the....Fluff.....?
Is Disney so desperate and clueless now as to how to sell their already exsisting ( and always-and-forever popular ) characters that they feel a real need to create silly fluff like this?

All i can think of is My Little Pony looking at this....look, they all have brushable manes and tales!
What the hell....
( shakes head in disbelief at this display of shallow commercialisim)

I DO hope they never make a animated series out of this....but with toy marketing these days, it seems likely.

May the Gods help us all.
 

FrankLapidus

Well-Known Member
Speaking of upcoming films, Disney marketing seems to be trying to mislead folks into thinking Frozen had nothing to do with a fairy tale whatsoever, which couldn't befurther from the truth! Maybe trying to trick little boys into the theater.

I don't think it's necessarily an attempt to mislead people. They don't want to alienate particular demographics so, like they did with Tangled, their marketing campaign is playing down the fairy tale conventions that might not appeal to boys or children above a certain age. It seems to have worked with Tangled judging by the success of that film so you can't really blame them for trying to repeat the same tactic. If The Little Mermaid were released today it would probably be called "Flippers" or something stupid like that.

By all accounts it sounds like it will be a very loose adaptation of The Snow Queen, so in that respect it won't be out of place with the rest of Disney's canon of fairy tale features.
 

willtravel

Well-Known Member
The official name of the company is still thankfully "The Walt Disney Company" however they have removed Walt's name from the title cards in front of the movies and nearly all official branding instances so removing his name from the company is not as absurd a concept as it used to be.
Then take Walt out of the stock name if it has no importance. If they are trying to separate the name Walt from everything then take it out of the stock name or would that create an uproar. Or are they rebranding the company's name quietly?
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
MK was great all day. It was crowded but the lines weren't crazy by any means. For the 2nd busiest day of the year (compared to Christmas) it wasn't bad. Then 8PM came around and BOOM! Crazyland. We waited at Casey's Corner for 35 minutes to buy a chili dog. It was still worth it! Boy what an amazing firework show! Check out this pic from we snapped during the grand finale!

Help us Fix the Yeti and "LIKE" my facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/FixTheYeti
1040895_1397872970426373_1736133778_o.jpg

That's a great picture.
 

bubbles1812

Well-Known Member
I don't think it's necessarily an attempt to mislead people. They don't want to alienate particular demographics so, like they did with Tangled, their marketing campaign is playing down the fairy tale conventions that might not appeal to boys or children above a certain age. It seems to have worked with Tangled judging by the success of that film so you can't really blame them for trying to repeat the same tactic. If The Little Mermaid were released today it would probably be called "Flippers" or something stupid like that.

By all accounts it sounds like it will be a very loose adaptation of The Snow Queen, so in that respect it won't be out of place with the rest of Disney's canon of fairy tale features.
Judging by the plot synopsis, the only thing Frozen has in common with the actual fairy tale (which is wonderful by the way), is that there is someone called the Snow Queen. And that's it. Kind of tragic really as the fairy tale itself is excellent and unique.

Ok, watching the Lone Ranger now... My thoughts after! :)

Also, Chris Hemsworth is sexy in the Thor 2 trailer :P ;) :)
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
Personally, I don't feel that The Lone Ranger was another John Carter in the regard that Disney destined it to fail, but rather is now the blame game being played as no one wants to be held accountable. I don't buy the reports I've seen that there was a conceited effort within Disney to doom the project. The documented history of the film speaks for itself--and in that regard alone it should be no surprise to anyone that there might have been some individuals at Disney who were less than enthusiastic about the project and possibly didn't give it their all to make it a success. Hollywood egos being what they are, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a certain amount of this on most projects.

The larger part of the problem here is that this film has received 121 negative reviews from independent critics (that's far worse than John Carter). Some of these reviews may be a result of laziness or reviewing the film simply based on the names attached, but not all of them--or even the majority of them. Contrasting the audience score to the critics' score is no indication of sabotage--it happens all the time with blockbusters of this sort, and certainly Bruckheimer is no stranger to it.

As for some specifics:
  • Calling a film bloated doesn't necessarily have to do with attention spans. I think TLR was bloated, but Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia are two of my favorite movies, and I don't feel that way about either of them. It's all about what you do with your run-time.
  • I thought TLR was pretty violent for a PG-13 film, but I only mention that in juxtaposition to the (attempts at) humor. I like violent films...
  • The "humor" is what really sinks the ship for me. I flat out did not find this movie funny, and thought many of the "jokes" either stalled action or were cringe-worthy.
  • The framed-story element was pointless.
  • The movie has no tone--it jumps all over the place in terms of storytelling.
  • The last 30 (or so) minutes of the film are just flat out fun. I disagree with any criticism of the end...
As I've said previously, I think there is a solid popcorn movie under the surface despite these criticisms, but I just didn't find the finished product to be that. I hope that it grows legs through positive word of mouth, as I think there's more to tell here, and I think if given the chance, they could really hit their stride with a sequel.

Reasonable minds may differ, though. I can understand how people might like TLR as-is, and I don't begrudge anyone for that.

Yeah, I'm following you now. I appreciate your intellectual analysis of things of this nature. I also believe I read your blog (I think) a while back. Either way, good post.
 

Darth Sidious

Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
Judging by the plot synopsis, the only thing Frozen has in common with the actual fairy tale (which is wonderful by the way), is that there is someone called the Snow Queen. And that's it. Kind of tragic really as the fairy tale itself is excellent and unique.

Ok, watching the Lone Ranger now... My thoughts after! :)

Also, Chris Hemsworth is sexy in the Thor 2 trailer :P ;) :)

Now I won't address Hemsworth's sexual appeal to the women of the world but I have high hopes Thor 2 will be of the same caliber movie as Iron Man 3. I can't wait for Captain America: Winter Soldier though, the first movie was underrated and in my opinion excellent. They built Cap's character up perfectly and made him easily the most likable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom