Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

[jmc]

Who gives a **** about music critics? In the Disney War it's mentioned Sleeping Beauty was criticized mainly for its pacing issues, ie boring. And I know Bambi wasn't as well received as Snow White but it wasn't nearly as panned as you're making it out, although to be fair it isn't a great movie even today, but I will admit if there is an example of overlooking the problems for nostalgia like you've suggested it's probably that film.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Late, half awake - and yeah Sleeping Beauty, you're correct actually...

It was Bambi was weighed down by the insisting for realism - critics.

And it was Cinderella (where it originated from (in that that's where it's seen by animators to have gotten 'worse' in that direction) and where I lost track) where the animators had a problem with it, critics didn't, because rather than just roto-scoping they were now more-so "tracing." Basically he shot (Wilfred Jackson and Hamilton Luske - not Walt) the entire Cinderella film in live action completely to save money and get all of the timing right completely. Which didn't leave the animators as much room to experiment as they used to.

ADDING: Animators didn't really like it when it was first introduced with Snow White, because a lot felt it would take away from creating a caricature of the real. Art Babbitt refused it (interesting history on him - he was the key animator behind the strike which (the strike) was found to be run by a key member in the communist party that the FBI was going after). So that complaint didn't originate with Cinderella.

But, beliefs and where they originated from (since I have this post, just thought I'd educate and set the record right on some myths):

Nazism:
> Dorothy Thomas' whacky review
> Walt making a tax cartoon during the war with Donald Duck. The government was upset with how much money they spent on it without taking into account the short time frame they wanted it in and how this would raise the price. Walt GAVE them Donald (he didn't need to) which kicked other Donald cartoons out of theaters and in the end he took a major loss from the picture.
> Reality of the situation: Nobody was believing Seversky when he said air power could win the war, Walt teamed up with him for 'Victory Through Air Power' based upon his book - from there Churchill saw it and during a meeting showed to the President who demanded that others see it and this is what led into D-Day otherwise known as Operation Mickey Mouse. So, in reality Walt was the key figure in defeating the nazis.

Anti-semetic:
> One of the animators at a time when many Jewish people were changing their names to be accepted told Walt during the hiring process that he was a Jew who changed his name. Walt told him that he was hired and (unlike so many other studios at the time) told him to keep his name because he should be 100% who he is.
> I forget where this one originated from, I do know only two people out of the whole studio ever mentioned it and if I remember correctly, those who did state this were part of the strike. It does speak volumes that Walt was one of the few managers who didn't accept the whole notion of Jewish people having to change their names in order to get ahead.

Racist:
> Walt actively seeked out help from african american scholars, the only thing they advised him to do was get rid of the singing - which he kept.
> Walt assigned an adamant liberal who was against making the film because he believed he would come up with a version that was more accepting of people than the book was.
> Walt became a very dear friend of the lead actor, campaigned for him to win an academy award nod when all others were striking it, and that actor's wife thanked him for being a great friend.
> Having learned from this how even if you don't want to offend people you still might - he was against Davy Crockett originally because he was afraid that there was too much fighting Indians.

Also that Disney strike?
> Led by communists that the FBI were after
> Started spreading rumors and mis-information
> The SCG head frightened a lot of people. Some of Walt's animators didn't want to sign with him and wanted a vote as if they should sign with his union or some other union. Upon hearing that the SCG head threatened him he was going to strike and smear him because he had lost a vote before at another studio. Walt just didn't want to sell his animators "down the river" and wanted them to have a choice.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm not saying they are the same, you can never get the same. There is only one Walt. But, if you are talking about how much 'respect' and 'box office' Disney picture films that are released today are getting to how much 'respect' and 'box office' those films got back when they were released. It has always been about being discovered later. Disney films were panned critically back then and flopped more often than succeeded, and Disney films are panned critically today and flop more often than they succeed. But, the eyes have always been towards the future. And that way of looking at it was right - because those films are remembered completely oppositely to how they were seen back in the day; regardless of being seen as an outsider, regardless of being seen as losing touch, regardless of the critics - Walt marched on.

I can't believe you're comparing classic films with the likes of Lone Ranger and the Pirates sequels. Disney is creatively bankrupt outside of the stuff they've acquired (Marvel, PIXAR, Lucasfilm). It is not the same company that Walt was running back in the day. No point in even comparing.

 

[redhawk23]

Disney is not in the best of shape but Wreck It Ralph would indicate that Disney proper isn't dead yet creatively.

But yeah there is a major difference between old films that became more appreciated later and the behemoths cranked out by the Bruckheimer machine, specificially that they often fail in terms of basic story telling. Its not just a matter of taste. Many of them are functionally bad.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I specifically stated it wasn't the exact same. But, do I think some of these films get a rough reception and will be seen as better years later? Without a doubt. John Carter as being the prime example. It was BRAD BIRD'S passion project and that shows.

Tron Legacy is up in the air, but I'd say it's up there with Tron -- and if I'm correct at box office they behaved the same.

I also went on to state that I haven't seen Lone Ranger yet so I can't place it anywhere. BUT making a new remake after the first attempt failed at box office in a box office poison genre isn't a risk-free move to make. Westerns are absolutely not seen as risk-free films to make. They also saw Johnny Depp at box office isn't a guarantee, plus a guy that few have heard of in the lead role. So, from the start despite having some of the same pirate guys - it was an undeniable uphill battle.

So are they up, up there? No, because as I said there's only one Walt. Are they risk taking? I'd say this day and age trying to revive a film that didn't succeed at box office the first time around, making a film in a box office poison genre, and making a huge budgeted sci-fi epic that isn't Star Wars or Star Trek is obviously taking risks.

These show that they're going more after the films they themselves want to see and just hoping that others do too. And this is most evident with Tron Legacy. The film didn't do well, but I'd highly doubt those at Disney didn't like the film. They celebrate it one of the parks at Disneyland every night and had it as one of the key lands in a Kingdom Hearts game. Both LONG after the film came out.

So does it seem like they are more experimental and take greater risks today than any other studio? Without a doubt, yes, because -- like in the past they didn't let critics or box office detour them. These aren't films any other studio would take a chance at the box office on.

 

[redhawk23]

The original tron is fondly remembered for the innovation that it brought, Tron Legacy didn't really bring anything to the table. Its not like Legacy was outright hated. It had basically a meh reception...and will likely remain that way.

I don't know why theres always this assumption and defense around here that films will be better received in the future when most movies, even good ones are just kind of pushed aside and many poorly recieved movies, if they are remembered at all are only brought up on "biggest bombs" lists.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Tron not so warmly received and seen as good only by some when it came out and went on to become a growing cult classic?

To the second part, because the studio has a history of doing exactly that. It's hard to see now, but if you were to go into the past and tell them that some films would be better received years later? They would without a doubt be giving the exact same response you are now -- how?

And just like the past, regardless of whether you guys hate this or not, they're pushing ahead. Tron Legacy in particular is celebrated nightly at one of the Disneyland parks. This shows that they hold it up, even if the critics didn't and it didn't do well at the box office. And this? Is the exact opposite of how most other studios would react.

 

[Hyde]

I specifically stated it wasn't the exact same. But, do I think some of these films get a rough reception and will be seen as better years later? Without a doubt. John Carter as being the prime example. It was BRAD BIRD'S passion project and that shows.

Tron Legacy is up in the air, but I'd say it's up there with Tron -- and if I'm correct at box office they behaved the same.

I also went on to state that I haven't seen Lone Ranger yet so I can't place it anywhere. BUT making a new remake after the first attempt failed at box office in a box office poison genre isn't a risk-free move to make. Westerns are absolutely not seen as risk-free films to make. They also saw Johnny Depp at box office isn't a guarantee, plus a guy that few have heard of in the lead role. So, from the start despite having some of the same pirate guys - it was an undeniable uphill battle.

So are they up, up there? No, because as I said there's only one Walt. Are they risk taking? I'd say this day and age trying to revive a film that didn't succeed at box office the first time around, making a film in a box office poison genre, and making a huge budgeted sci-fi epic that isn't Star Wars or Star Trek is obviously taking risks.

These show that they're going more after the films they themselves want to see and just hoping that others do too. And this is most evident with Tron Legacy. The film didn't do well, but I'd highly doubt those at Disney didn't like the film. They celebrate it one of the parks at Disneyland every night and had it as one of the key lands in a Kingdom Hearts game. Both LONG after the film came out.

So does it seem like they are more experimental and take greater risks today than any other studio? Without a doubt, yes, because -- like in the past they didn't let critics or box office detour them. These aren't films any other studio would take a chance at the box office on.

Andrew Stanton directed it

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Brad Bird didn't direct John Carter. It was Andrew Stanton, of Nemo and Wall-E fame.

What are we talking about here? The company has made Tangled, Wreck-it Ralph, Winnie the Pooh, John Carter and the Lone Ranger the last 4 years. The have Frozen coming out at the end of the year. I personally think they are doing great.

And the point stands. Critics and those that think themselves critics in the general audience in the here and now might not like those films. But the same applies to a lot of Disney films in the past. Many now revered as classics.

Disney is not in the best of shape but Wreck It Ralph would indicate that Disney proper isn't dead yet creatively.

But yeah there is a major difference between old films that became more appreciated later and the behemoths cranked out by the Bruckheimer machine, specificially that they often fail in terms of basic story telling. Its not just a matter of taste. Many of them are functionally bad.

Are we just going to ignore their animation division?

Their last 4 animates films.

The Princess and the Frog
Tangled
Winnie the Pooh
Wreck-it Ralph

Two instant classics and two very good ones imo. The next two are Frozen and Big Hero 6, and the former looks quite impressive. When you think "Classic Disney", it is the animation division that always pops up first and they are still doing strong work.

That is very strong, and I personally also loved The Lone Ranger and really, really liked John Carter.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Andrew Stanton directed it

The heart of the film is still clearly evident. And the risk they took is beyond obvious. It was a high budgeted sci-fi picture with no box office guarantee since it wasn't the big two. And this current Disney is really the only company that would take a risk and make a large budget scifi movie that isn't the key two.

As said NO OTHER COMPANY would take the risk of reviving a film that didn't do so well at the box office the first time, make a really high budget western film because Hollywood at large sees it as being a box office poison genre, and a large budgeted scifi adventure film that isn't Star Wars or Star Trek. They're experimenting in ways that other companies are too intimidated to do. And when one doesn't succeed as well, they don't cover their eyes like other studios do - they celebrate it at the parks still years later.

 

[Mr.M]

Disney is not in the best of shape but Wreck It Ralph would indicate that Disney proper isn't dead yet creatively.

But yeah there is a major difference between old films that became more appreciated later and the behemoths cranked out by the Bruckheimer machine, specificially that they often fail in terms of basic story telling. Its not just a matter of taste. Many of them are functionally bad.

I don't think Bruckheimer has it anymore. Most of his big movie productions are generic, bland, borderline cheesey, and outdated. I'm skeptical of Pirates 5 at this point, even though we'll get that no doubt. Heck they may as well sign Depp for a PoTC 6 right now. Disney just doesn't take creative risks anymore. It's one thing to finally produce a PG-13 movie, but audiences are more mature these days. You can't keep feeding these lighter, dumbed down, eye candy fests with little style and no substance. Would Disney ever do a more violent, darker tentpole in the vein of Pacific Rim? Will they copy the cheesey trend of Transformers and hope to hit big? The only way to buck this trend is to higher more modern creative minds and take some risks, and drop the price tag of non-proven properties.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Are you seriously saying this isn't taking risks:

- reviving a film that didn't do well at box office
- making a box office poison genre film
- making a scifi adventure that isn't star wars or star trek

Being in the industry and seeing how these guys think, no other studio would ever dare to make these movies because they'd see them as dead on arrival.

Also in the age where Transformers is doing beyond ace business wise - are you in all honesty going to say that making yet another big action spectacle with giant robots fightings things is risky?

 

[scifiwolf]

After Curse of the Black Pearl, I haven't enjoyed a Bruckheimer flick outside of National Treasure and The Sourcerer's Apprentice. Neither one was particularly good, anyway, but I still get a lot of satisfaction out of watching them.

 

[Mr.M]

Are you seriously saying this isn't taking risks:

- reviving a film that didn't do well at box office
- making a box office poison genre film
- making a scifi adventure that isn't star wars or star trek

Being in the industry and seeing how these guys think, no other studio would ever dare to make these movies because they'd see them as dead on arrival.

Also in the age where Transformers is doing beyond ace business wise - are you in all honesty going to say that making yet another big action spectacle with giant robots fightings things is risky?

Yeah... I'm serious. I can't speak for those films because I haven't seen them personally. But shoving Johnny Depp down our throats again was a turn off to the public IMO. It looked like a generic, inflated western that frankly wasn't anything we haven't already seen. Same old was the vibe I got. John Carter just looked like a joke. Taylor Kitsch killed it (in a bad way), but you have to start with the director. I don't know how that thing had a 200 million dollar budget. You can't just look at budget and tell me the risk lies there in itself. There is a perception of what Disney thinks they can force feed to audiences, and clearly there is a disconnect.

The movie to watch this year clearly is Pacific Rim. Then we can have this debate again in a week. I feel Transformers was the product of a blossoming young actor, an actress that made every boy's wet dream a reality, and unbelievable spectacle. I don't see those components in Disney productions and I certainly don't see them as risks. Just stupid creative decisions from properties that were potentially salvageable. Look no further than PoTC, coming off Cutthroat Island.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Yeah... I'm serious. I can't speak for those films because I haven't seen them personally. But shoving Johnny Depp down our throats again was a turn off to the public IMO. It looked like a generic, inflated western that frankly wasn't anything we haven't already seen. Same old was the vibe I got. John Carter just looked like a joke. Taylor Kitsch killed it (in a bad way), but you have to start with the director. I don't know how that thing had a 200 million dollar budget. You can't just look at budget and tell me the risk lies there in itself. There is a perception of what Disney thinks they can force feed to audiences, and clearly there is a disconnect.

The movie to watch this year clearly is Pacific Rim. Then we can have this debate again in a week. I feel Transformers was the product of a blossoming young actor, an actress that made every boy's wet dream a reality, and unbelievable spectacle. I don't see those components in Disney productions and I certainly don't see them as risks. Just stupid creative decisions from properties that were potentially salvageable. Look no further than PoTC, coming off Cutthroat Island.

How is it "Shoving Depp down our throats" when he wanted to make the movie? He was one of the major backers behind the Lone Ranger. Most of Disney wasn't keen on it, which is why it kept getting pushed back. You make no sense.

 

[scifiwolf]

The public doesn't know that. They just see Depp overload.

 

[Ultimatehero]

What you're talking about isn't risk, what you're talking about is safety. MOST studios are making complex darker films these days which are more readily successful, which you are calling is risk taking. In an an age where lighter films aren't making as much money, you're saying a studio staying family friendly isn't risky. So making a dark film like every other studio - risky. Making a family friendly film not like every other studio and aren't doing as well - not risky. Got it.

Opinions don't really fall into risk taking or not risk taking. Just because you didn't like something doesn't make it not risk taking. You're saying John Carter looking like a joke to you as defining why it isn't risky. While I'm saying it's risky because you won't see any studio these days taking a risk on a film of the like which isn't trek or wars.

Pacific Rim will either show that audiences aren't hip on giant robot movies like Transformers, or it will show that giant robots are in. You can clearly and more readily see this in how audiences reacted to Battleship. key point being the studio's decision there as to why is clearly transparent - trying to cash in on Transformers. I'm not saying Del Torro saw it that way, as a cash in, but the studio did. Transformers 1 was risky - pacific rim is not.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The public doesn't know that. They just see Depp overload.

That is fine, but Mr.M is going crazy up there without seemingly knowing what in the world he is talking about. The Lone Ranger was what the Pirates crew wanted to do.

 

[Mr.M]

How is it "Shoving Depp down our throats" when he wanted to make the movie? He was one of the major backers behind the Lone Ranger. Most of Disney wasn't keen on it, which is why it kept getting pushed back. You make no sense.

That's true I'd forgotten about his persistence and enthusiasm in that project. But Disney ultimately signed the check. Did they do this as a showing of goodwill to that team for past efforts? I mean there was no reason to doubt them as a unit (with Bruckheimer and Gore). I was just turned off by Johnny Depp as that character. Cowboys and Aliens tried to provide a radically altered take on the genre and that to me is a risk. I'd say you could draw analogies between that production and John Carter, as this sort of blend of both world's. In that sense I can see how you could have called Lone Ranger a risk, but with the same PoTC team and the basic vibe of the movie from the trailers, I don't think they offered anything new.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The heart of the film is still clearly evident. And the risk they took is beyond obvious. It was a high budgeted sci-fi picture with no box office guarantee since it wasn't the big two. And this current Disney is really the only company that would take a risk and make a large budget scifi movie that isn't the key two.

As said NO OTHER COMPANY would take the risk of reviving a film that didn't do so well at the box office the first time, make a really high budget western film because Hollywood at large sees it as being a box office poison genre, and a large budgeted scifi adventure film that isn't Star Wars or Star Trek. They're experimenting in ways that other companies are too intimidated to do. And when one doesn't succeed as well, they don't cover their eyes like other studios do - they celebrate it at the parks still years later.

Uh, WB took a massive risk with Inception and it paid off in a huge way for them. Paramount and WB are taking perhaps an even bigger risk with Interstellar next year.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That's true I'd forgotten about his persistence and enthusiasm in that project. But Disney ultimately signed the check. Did they do this as a showing of goodwill to that team for past efforts? I mean there was no reason to doubt them as a unit (with Bruckheimer and Gore). I was just turned off by Johnny Depp as that character. Cowboys and Aliens tried to provide a radically altered take on the genre and that to me is a risk. I'd say you could draw analogies between that production and John Carter, as this sort of blend of both world's. In that sense I can see how you could have called Lone Ranger a risk, but with the same PoTC team and the basic vibe of the movie from the trailers, I don't think they offered anything new.

Now Cowboys and Aliens is a prime example of wasting money. Wasn't really that important to anyone involved and they wasted lots of money during filming. The catering stories are classic.

And yes, The Lone Ranger was a bit of goodwill for the team. It was also a way to get Depp to come back as Captain Jack. Personally I love it and didn't find that Depp was doing another "Captain Jack". Less PotC, more old school western. So many call backs for fans like me of westerns, namely Ford and Leone.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Uh, WB took a massive risk with Inception and it paid off in a huge way for them. Paramount and WB are taking perhaps an even bigger risk with Interstellar next year.

The WB doesn't see it as a risk. To the point that they bullied themselves in on the deal.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The WB doesn't see it as a risk. To the point that they bullied themselves in on the deal.

It is a financial risk, there is no doubt about that. WB wanted in on it because they want to keep working with Nolan in the same way they've thrown plenty of cash down the drain to keep working with Kubrick and Eastwood through the years.

 

[Mr.M]

What you're talking about isn't risk, what you're talking about is safety. MOST studios are making complex darker films these days which are more readily successful, which you are calling is risk taking. In an an age where lighter films aren't making as much money, you're saying a studio staying family friendly isn't risky. So making a dark film like every other studio - risky. Making a family friendly film not like every other studio and aren't doing as well - not risky. Got it.

Opinions don't really fall into risk taking or not risk taking. Just because you didn't like something doesn't make it not risk taking. You're saying John Carter looking like a joke to you as defining why it isn't risky. While I'm saying it's risky because you won't see any studio these days taking a risk on a film of the like which isn't trek or wars.

Pacific Rim will either show that audiences aren't hip on giant robot movies like Transformers, or it will show that giant robots are in. You can clearly and more readily see this in how audiences reacted to Battleship. key point being the studio's decision there as to why is clearly transparent - trying to cash in on Transformers. I'm not saying Del Torro saw it that way, as a cash in, but the studio did. Transformers 1 was risky - pacific rim is not.

The concept itself may be risky. Civil war soldier somehow getting to Mars and saving a princess. At the end of the day it was catering to a typical Disney audience. Fanstastical aliens and creatures, a light and vibrant tone, a young star and an attractive princess. I haven't seen the film so correct me if it is a much darker tone than what I may be making out. But there is this formulaic pattern that they consistently stick with. Pacific Rim might not look like a risk from a trailer, but monster movies have gone away since Emmerich's Godzilla (not counting smaller Cloverfield type films). You have a no name cast for the most part. A gigantic budget. We'll see what happens. The "risky" assesment may have to be answered in retrospect.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It is a financial risk, there is no doubt about that. WB wanted in on it because they want to keep working with Nolan in the same way they've thrown plenty of cash down the drain to keep working with Kubrick and Eastwood through the years.

If they wanted that, they could have just given him what he wanted.

And not much of a financial risk. A lot of groups are carrying the cost, the budget is large, but far from obscene and Nolan is directing. Nolan's name is box office these days.