Hollywood to implode...according to Spielberg

[Kahran Ramsus]

.....Is it bad that I didn't know Jaws was based on a book?

To be fair it was a pretty trashy novel.

 

[Lord]

.....Is it bad that I didn't know Jaws was based on a book?

Nah, a lot of elements from the book were even dropped, i believe it included the mafia for some reason. According to Spielberg the characters were very unsympathetic and he says he even wanted the shark to win.

 

[Hyde]

Haha that sounds nuts. Glad Spielberg changed it into what we've got today

 

[roach]

Nah, a lot of elements from the book were even dropped, i believe it included the mafia for some reason. According to Spielberg the characters were very unsympathetic and he says he even wanted the shark to win.

The mafia was involved in Amity and were responsible for the mayor keeping the beaches open on 4th of July.
Another part cut was an affair between Hooper and Chief Brody's wife.

 

[Rock Sexton]

The studio system has become diseased. The accumulated filth of all their PG-13 and brand regocnition will foam up about their waists and all the producers and accounts will look up and shout 'Save us!' And Spielberg will look down, and whisper 'No'"

 

[Tanin]

That overused quote is the only reason I dislike that film.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm pretty sure what Darth was getting at is it will allow them to continue to make movies they want to see regardless of what the box office is. Walt had a philosophy back in the day that he never cared about what the critics had to say or how the films performed at box office, he just wanted to make the films he wanted to see and everyone just happened to find them and love them years later. Disney was always on the brink of financial destruction. As the years passed, Disney became more and more successful but how films are made and how important the box office is changed too. And now they can continue taking risks with just the movies they want to see rather than being dictated by box office. They're big enough to go back to the "screw the critics, screw the box office, I just want to see this and I think some people will love them too" way of thinking about things which it seems Disney Pictures is more about these days - just making films they themselves want to see because their acquisitions are powerful enough to let them play around. I'd say that's an excellent thing because it's back in many ways to the experimental approach Walt had (other than a couple of his films, the critics were never on his side and many of them believe it or not flopped or disappointed at box office initially only later to go on to become CLASSICS), what other studio would put that level of money towards a huge sci-fi film and a huge western? These risks are ones that currently no other studio are making, so to me that's saying that they're going after the unexpected and it's creatively free like it used to be in the past. In my books, that's a really wonderful and amazing thing.

Problem is they aren't using real creativity on these huge projects. Bruckheimer is as boring and predictable of a film producer as you'll find in Hollywood, and rehashing the Pirates formula for a Lone Ranger movie is lame as hell. It's not like they were trying to make a truly daring film like what you saw from Kubrick back in the day. WB would fund his movies knowing full well that they wouldn't make a lot of money, but it was worth it to their executives to have a master filmmaker working for their studio.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I haven't seen Lone Ranger yet - going to this week though. But, I'd say going after a genre considered to be "box office poison" is a big risk on their part as well as the 80s movie having flopped. The most prime example would be John Carter.

 

[jmc]

Thing about Disney is that whilst they may have acquired talent in the form of other studios, they themselves are not producing the goods. Pixar is a solid brand, Lucasfilm too, Marvel as well but not nearly to the same extent, these are the companies making coin for Disney at the moment. But what about the Disney brand? In the last couple years they've had flops or disappointments in the form of Tron, John Carter and now Lone Ranger, questionable film ideas to begin with and poorly executed final products. It seems to me anyway that Disney have become complacent in their own brand and are relying too much on other people to offset their losses, even their animation department is more or less controlled by Pixar alumni nowadays.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I wouldn't necessarily call that a bad thing. They're finding who the geniuses are and they're giving them a full playground to roam around in. And in terms of having the most successful production companies period, Disney Studios is leagues ahead of the pack.

ADDING: I'm not saying it's a good things that those films aren't doing so well, but that they are going after the best of the best. And with their Pictures company they seem to be letting people do their passion projects or projects they want to do even when they're deemed risky.

 

[jmc]

I wouldn't necessarily call that a bad thing. They're finding who the geniuses are and they're giving them a full playground to roam around in. And in terms of having the most successful production companies period, Disney is leagues ahead of the pack.

I don't deny that, I'm talking purely from a brand perspective Disney's image as a live action studio isn't great. I'm doubtful they're ok with that, to me I'd want the Disney live action movies to find geniuses for Disney, not just acquire talent in the form of entire studios. To me it's lazy on Disney's part. Makes sense financially, but from an in house creative perspective the company's decisions are questionable and frankly damaging to the name. They haven't had a decent live action movie in years.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Also it is a matter of point in bringing history into play:

Critics were against it.
Underperformed at box office

Snow White - Success
Pinocchio - Struggled at box office
Fantasia - Didn't make a profit until 1969 (it was released in 1940)
Dumbo - Success
Bambi - Lost money at the box office
Cinderella - Success
Alice In Wonderland - Lukewarm reception at the box office
Peter Pan - Success
Lady and the Tramp - Success
Sleeping Beauty - Not as good as box office as it needed

Disney films have more of a history of being recognized and found over time and remembered as classic, they weren't when they came out though. You ask anyone today what the top children films are - they'd state those. The films in the 90s being breakthrough hits was a first. But they have a rockier history than we know. Disney didn't care about it back then, I doubt they care about it today - if anything they seem to becoming more the company that is pushing what they want to see out and hoping that people want to see it to, and if they don't want to see it today - perhaps (like all of these) we'll find them years later.

 

[jmc]

We are talking about a different era though. I'm well aware Snow White was the only financial success they had for many years, the difference is with those films that flopped is that they actually are good movies and are called classic for a reason. Disney's integrity was maintained even throughout that period of financial failure. You honestly can't tell me Tron Legacy, John Carter Oz the Great and Powerful will be remembered in the same way as Bambi or Alice in Wonderland in 30 years time.

 

[Ultimatehero]

We are talking about a different ear though. I'm well aware Snow White was the only financial success they had for many years, the difference is with those films that flopped is that they actually are good movies and are called classic for a reason. Disney's integrity was maintained even throughout that period of financial failure. You honestly can't tell me Tron Legacy, John Carter Oz the Great and Powerful will be remembered in the same way as Bambi or Alice in Wonderland in 30 years time.

TODAY we see them as good movies, back then the critics were against them and the audience didn't show up in droves. We can say that really only in retrospection.

Historically, people were also gravitating more towards the cartoons put out by other studios and it was said that Walt was losing his touch. Today we know that's not true at all. But, there is no way you can say those films were seen the same as we see them today. Disney did have more successes - looking to live action with 20,000, Treasure Island, and Mary Poppins but Disney was never taken seriously by those in Hollywood and that was always something that bothered Walt (in how Hollywood seen as being that outsider). That's part of the tragedy of it, he was really only truly recognized as the genius we see him as today after he passed away.

Will those three be remembered as classic? No. I do think they're better than some make them out to be. But will they be re-discovered and seen in a different light? Now that's the answer no one knows.

 

[Micromind]

Todays Disney is not comparable to older Disney, it is much more commercial and relies on formulaic entertainment.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Todays Disney is not comparable to older Disney, it is much more commercial and relies on formulaic entertainment.

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.

 

[Micromind]

Just Look at Pirates franchise, who needed four pirates movies ?

Then Prince Of Persia, Mars needs Moms, John Carter, Lone Ranger all movies were made with sole purpose of making money and they failed.

(I can say the same thing about WB's Wrath of Titans, Hangover series and Dark Shadows.)

 

[jmc]

TODAY we see them as good movies, back then the critics were against them and the audience didn't show up in droves.

Historically, people were also gravitating more towards the cartoons put out by other studios and it was said that Walt was losing his touch. Today we know that's not true at all. But, there is no way you can say those films were seen the same as we see them today.

Will those three be remembered as classic? No. I do think they're better than some make them out to be. But will they be re-discovered and seen in a different light? Now that's the answer no one knows.

Some of the criticisms were and frankly are valid, some of it wasn't like the *****ing about the changes to Alice in Wonderland, but again it was a different era. In spite of whatever critical reaction the intention was always to ensure that great emphasis was placed on good storytelling, those films endured a longevity because people love going back to those stories. Disney now are a franchise machine, they're not concerned with their brands future which has lead to substandard film making, their stories are now a piece of ****, their films nothing more than a waste of money. They can acquire all the production companies in the world to fill their wallets, but they're not doing anything for the Disney brand itself to fix the issues within the studio. To me Disney may as well just pack in the live action part of the company and let Lucasfilm, Marvel and whoever else bring in the coin.

 

[Ultimatehero]

In response to the critics.

In Walt's words:
"To hell with the critics, it's the audience that I'm making the pictures for." (paraphrasing)

John Carter - will probably be remembered in a better light in the future.

I'm also unsure how a box office hit guarantee comes from a movie based on a property that the masses don't know in mass these days and going after a movie in a genre that's deemed to be box office poison.

Also are really saying no thought went into John Carter? It was Brad Bird's dream and passion project to make that film.

And yes, today we love to keep going back - but back then? The audience couldn't see it if you hit them over the head with it until very late in the game.

 

[jmc]

I'll just add having read a number of books on Disney history whilst all the films weren't universally loved they really weren't universally panned like the movies of today. From memory Sleeping Beauty was the one most disliked.

 

[jmc]

Sorry, my mistake, it was Lady and the Tramp which was panned.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Fantasia - Divided the movie critics and the music critics, some called it being overly commercialized while others called it too artistic, one reviewer likened it to being attacked by nazis rich with power (this is most likely where we get the absurd nazi claim from).

Bambi - Critics were yelling about it being too somber, dark, and depressing. That it had no fantasy to it. In its first test screening a teenage girl in the audience yelled out "here I am Bambi!" When Bambi was screaming for his mother and everyone in the audience laughed. This was one of Walt's most embarrassing moments.

Alice In Wonderland - The critics were complaining that the film lacked any heart

Lady and the Tramp - It was deemed as being below par

Sleeping Beauty - The critics hated it because of it's extreme emphasis on realism (this was evidently a very big no-no for critics and audiences alike back then)

All throughout however, they were seen as losing touch and being too old fashioned in light of cartoons such as Looney Tunes coming out among others which were more violent. This is why the critics praised a scene in Three Caballeros with Donald and the cactus because it was surreal and more modern.

While Mickey Mouse started out as a success, soon the audience came to see him as too stale and washed up of a character - leading to Donald and Goofy being more popular for a time.

Interesting to note - Walt had always tried to make a 'Mickey Mouse feature.'

Disneyland - it's opening was known as 'black sunday' because of the number of things that went wrong, although the people still enjoyed it and kept coming - reporters practically tarnished its opening day.

I'd say the most controversial were Fantasia (that's where you get all that ridiculous nazi talk from, when Walt was largely responsible for D-Day to the point where it was called Operation Mickey Mouse) and Song of the South (where many believed Walt was a racist, he campaigned for the lead actor to get an academy award nod and his wife stated that Walt was a very very close friend to them).

 

[jmc]

Dude, Fantasia was well received for the most part, Fantasia 2000 was a turd. Sleeping Beauty was panned for being boring for the most part and the main complains for Alice were that it was too far removed from the book. Bambi wasn't nearly as panned as you're making it out to be. You're exaggerating what level of panning those films got.

 

[jmc]

Whilst we're on topic if anyone is interested in Disney I suggest reading The Disney War, good look at the companies history.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Dude, Fantasia was well received for the most part, Fantasia 2000 was a turd. Sleep Beauty was panned for being boring for the most part and the main complains for Alice were that it was too far removed from the book. Bambi wasn't nearly as panned as you're making it out to be. You're exaggerating what level of panning those film got.

Fantasia was well received by film critics, it was tarnished by music critics and that one scathing review is an actual one by a very deranged woman named Dorothy Thomas.

Actually Sleeping Beauty was seen as too realistic, you can't find that on wiki but that is one of the main emphasis on it in one of the biographies.

With Alice you are right, but Walt's answer for it is that it lacked heart. You can read this in biographies, but the key place he mentions it - I believe - is in the commentary on Peter Pan.

And everything I stated about Bambi is factual. His daughter the night after the screening even asked him why he had to let Bambi's mother die.