Is Disney still capable of making a truly great film?

[disdis]

Hi there, long time reader, new time poster. I thought this might be interesting to discuss this and hear some feedback.

So, Is Disney still capable of making a truly great film??

[ajmrowland]

First off, welcome!

secondly, slightly misnamed topic title if we're just talking live action films.

well, i'm not worried. Disney's live action films have rarely gotten the same acclaim as their animated films, and even some of the ones that do have at least partial animation in them. In the meantime, TRON is one of the few that are praised, and the sequel is highly-anticipated.

[DisneyJedi]

Honestly, the only live action Disney films that were recent and caught my real interest were Enchanted, The Sorcerer's Apprentice and Tron: Legacy. The rest are hit and miss.

[Luke]

Of course, they're capable. Can they do it while adhering to management's franchises-4eva philosophy? Yes, but I think it's more of a challenge. The list of 13 is actually a pretty solid representation of the better live-action Disney films of the past five years. I think the numbers are higher on the sports films than they should be (it's a lot harder to take something serious and inspirational to task than a car squirting out oil). <i>Enchanted</i> and the first <i>Narnia</i> stand as the best of that bunch. The Bruckheimer ones are generally entertaining even when they're not great, but I must admit I'm happy to see <i>Prince of Persia</i> fall flat and shoot a hole in the "spend money to make money" approach.

[Lazario]

I say...

No. Whether it's live action or animated.

I think I may have mentioned this before somewhere else. But, they used to be completely original and do something that no one else could do. They were the leaders and now they're followers. Not to mention filthy money whores. The executives won't allow anyone there to make a good movie. They'd have to pad it with unnecessary trendy comedy and slang terms first, or still awful-looking CGI if it's live action, the scores will all sound the same, there'll be no real implications of danger other than standard action explosions which you can hear in the newest Ice Age movie. Disney used to take a risk every now and then. Or come up with an image that could actually stop you dead in your tracks and dazzle you. And their music used to be one of a kind.

And of course... none of that really bothers anyone. Like I've said in other threads, nobody cares. Everyone likes bland movies these days. Probably because they know they have no choice. Because movies are commercials now.

[pap64]

I say...

No. Whether it's live action or animated.

I think I may have mentioned this before somewhere else. But, they used to be completely original and do something that no one else could do. They were the leaders and now they're followers. Not to mention filthy money whores. The executives won't allow anyone there to make a good movie. They'd have to pad it with unnecessary trendy comedy and slang terms first, or still awful-looking CGI if it's live action, the scores will all sound the same, there'll be no real implications of danger other than standard action explosions which you can hear in the newest Ice Age movie. Disney used to take a risk every now and then. Or come up with an image that could actually stop you dead in your tracks and dazzle you. And their music used to be one of a kind.

And of course... none of that really bothers anyone. Like I've said in other threads, nobody cares. Everyone likes bland movies these days. Probably because they know they have no choice. Because movies are commercials now.

I have to say that I both agree...and disagree.

I agree in that Disney now tends to follow trends rather than creating new ones themselves. The whole company was founded on the belief of moving forward despite the risks and obstacles they had to face. Now, whatever is hot in pop culture, they have to be there.

I disagree in that people don't like bland movies. OK, yeah, successes like Transformers and Twilight confirm this fact. But note that many of Disney's own efforts have failed greatly at the box office, or have performed lukewarmly or below expectations (Prince of Persia, the CG features etc.). Meanwhile, Pixar just keeps getting better, creating far more ambitious movies, and all of them have been successes so far. It got to the point where everyone and their grandmother betted that Up would be their biggest failure to date, and instead it was a big hit.

You could say that the reason these movies are doing well is because of the Pixar name rather than the quality of the movie itself (though considering the great life their films have in theaters the quality does help a bit), something that at one point Disney used to have (brand recognition).

Regarding the question on the thread, I say they ARE capable of making great movies. The problem is that they aren't capable at the moment, mainly because of the "following trends" mentality. Their movies are bad simply because rather than telling a sincere story and making an effort in creating engaging characters and universes they focus on creating what is hot and popular.

If they manage to move away from this, then yeah, they can shine once more. But this is easier said than done considering that some of these things ARE making them big money, and until the well completely dry then we have to put up with it.

I say ignore the bad and enjoy the good rather than hoping for them to change. They might change or not, but at least you'll have some fun in the process.

[Escapay]

Is Disney still capable of making a truly great film?

Yes, if they do the following:

1. Have a good script, a good director, a good cast, a good crew, and a good-enough budget to make the film. Naturally, this is often discovered in hindsight, and not in production. That's why the company needs a good foresight when they're developing a new movie.

2. Market the film to people who are not teenage boys. Other people go to the theatre.

3. Merchandise is made to support the film, not vice versa. I don't need toilet paper with mouse ears on them. And I certainly don't need a movie whose hidden agenda is to get me to buy mouse-eared toilet paper.

4. Don't make sequels purely because the studio wants more money. Otherwise you get Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Sequels should come because the story is still being told, or because a new story wants to be told.

Unfortunately, given Disney's track record for the past 10 years (be it live-action or animation), they haven't been following those very simple instructions. To be honest, for me the last truly great Disney film (regardless of its medium) was 2002's Tuck Everlasting. And it did everything that most of the films of the past five years didn't do:

It had a strong cast and capable director, not to mention one of the best musical scores I've ever heard.

It had a stronger story, and one worth telling, even if it was slightly different from the original novel.

It was a family film. Not in the sense of only family can see it. But that it had something to appeal to everybody. It was not skewed toward any particular gender or age.

It did not seek to sell soap, macaroni and cheese, wastebaskets, clothes hangers, towels, action figures, notebooks, jackets, Christmas ornaments, or Enchanted Phone Calls. It simply strived to be a good movie, and it was.

And, unfortunately, because of all those reasons, Disney saw little reason to market it and the film only made $19 million (which was good enough, given that it's budget was $15 million).

But even if it wasn't a mega financial hit for Disney, it was still a truly great movie. Looking at the movies that came after it, very few of them really are outstanding the way that Tuck Everlasting was. I think only three come close: 2005's The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, 2007's Bridge to Terabithia, and the upcoming Secretariat. I'm excited for TRON: Legacy but I don't expect it to be anything more than bells and whistles in 3-D.

albert

[pap64]

Is Disney still capable of making a truly great film?

2. Market the film to people who are not teenage boys. Other people go to the theatre.

They shouldn't market it to little girls, either.

[2099net]

The problem isn't just Disney. Say what you want about the live action films when Disney was alive - or even in the 70's and 80's - but Disney then weren't really making any film out of the ordinary compared to their competition. Just as Disney aren't making any films out of the ordinary compared to their competition these days.

I don't think its fair to say Disney's live action films were leaders. I mean, what was Disney's first live-action film? Treasure Island. A story already filmed in 1920, 1934 and 1937. Films like The Apple Dumpling Gang is just basically a film about a group of kids (hardly original, going back to such films as the Our Gang films etc).

The difference is, Disney's films prior the 21st Century told stories. But you know, other films from other studios did too.

These days film makers and audiences seem to regard the "story" bits as nothing more than inconvenient padding between the big, flashy, special effects scenes. And let's face it, it is the special effects sequences that sell movies these days - not the story.

To me, the decline is much more important than the decline in Disney live-action films. To be honest, I couldn't really care about Disney. And despite what's been written in this thread, Disney still can made decent live action films. It's just they're more likely to be low to mid budgeted (and as a result, skipped over by most of the audience).

You may have an instant dislike to the High School Musical films, but as musicals all three are damn good examples of the genre - and all consisting of a 'juvenile' cast too. That's some achievement. But all three HSM films will have the same timelessness popularity as the other great cinematic musicals do.

The two Narnia films (although I have some slight reservations about choices made when filming Prince Caspian) are also film which - while never becoming as popular as the Lord of the Rings films they obviously wanted to be - will also be remembered and viewed fondly for decades and decades.

Ice Princess, Eight Below, Holes, the Freaky Friday remake/reimagining, and I would also say Herbie: Fully Loaded are all recent-ish live action films that meet the criteria for films made primarily for children, but which appeal to all. Bu can you see the pattern? All are mid-budget movies and most brought in mid budget earnings. The fact is while each film may have found a much larger audience on home video, most of them found no real audience at the cinema.

You can blame Disney if you choose, or you can blame the public. I know which one I choose to blame. When I hear people saying Avatar was "the best movie of all time" I know what I look for in a good movie is totally at odds with what 95% of the population is looking for in a good movie. The fact is, unless a film has spectacle, hardly anybody will pay the money to see it. Especially in the crowded summer and holiday release schedules which is when children's films (and therefore Disney films) tend to make their money.

Of course, good movies and good effects can still go together. The fact that you spend tens of millions of dollars on special effects wizardry doesn't mean that you have to neglect the story. The Narnia films are examples of this - but they were taken from existing media. I think Disney shows this with films like Honey I Shrunk The Kids - a film that could be made today with Alice in Wonderland style CGI integration but would still succeed due to its bedrock of a solid-story with charismatic characters and even its obvious-but-not-in-your-face moralising.

I think nothing illustrates the decline of true, narrative driven cinema for something increasingly being replaced with spectacle and event driven cinema than Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland. The fact that this film has made over a billion dollars worldwide is staggering* when you see how empty and ultimately pointless the film is.

A sequel that not only nobody was demanding, but that takes elements from the original and reworks them into a basic, formulaic narrative common in so many fantasy films:

The where am I bit, the know your friends and enemies bit, the finding out you're the chosen one bit, the quest for an object bit and the final big battle bit followed by the going home bit.

[sigh] And this is from the director who gave us such complex, thoughtful and character driven films as Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, Ed Wood, Big Fish, even his two Batman films managed to rework the original source into a compelling mix of his own vision combined with going back to the characters' roots.

I want to think Burton made Alice simply as an experiment, to see how far computer technology could recreate his vision. But I'm not sure it was. Burton aside, Disney themselves obviously thought it was a good script, or else they wouldn't have funded it to an estimated cost of $200m.

$200m spent on movie with such a formulaic script. It truely boggles my mind. Yet made five times that at the box-office and most likely will end up making another 5 or more times back on home video, video on demand and television screenings.

Disney - like any other studio - just knows the truth. We don't want good movies any more. We just want effects.

* Although I contributed to the films constantly increasing profit.

[pap64]

Disney - like any other studio - just knows the truth. We don't want good movies any more. We just want effects.

I partially agree with this. I recall a good friend of mine once saying that if he wanted to go to the movies the film itself would have to be pretty damn amazing if he wanted to shell out 10 bucks to see it. Stuff like Alice and Avatar made a lot of money simply because it was WELL MADE spectacle. Say what you want about how Alice was underwhelming and Avatar a tired story, the acting in both movies were good, the story basic but engaging and of course, the spectacle was great.

And I say this because there have been many "spectacle" movies released that have bombed or underperformed at the box office, and many of them in glorious digital 3D. Obviously, the spectacle has to provide enough substance for people to go see them.

And I point to Alice and Avatar once more. They aren't the most shining examples of storytelling, but they had fascinating universe and were solid enough that people WANTED to see them in theaters. If the movie isn't engaging enough then the word of mouth will be weak and thus the film will fail.

Long story short, while I agree that people want a show when they go to the movies these days to say that's what they only want is kind of underestimating them (unless you are talking about the Twilight fanbase, which is a whole issue altogether), since it's been proven that half of the best selling movies are those that have done well with critics and moviegoers.

[2099net]

Well, on Rotten Tomatoes the average is 51%. It's a bit of a shame where what is critically an "average" film in all senses of the word makes over $1bn worldwide. Yes, it was (generally) well acted, and yes, I do believe the effects were ground-breaking. But ultimately its shallow and wanting and unsatisfying.

You right, plenty of spectacle films have failed, but I'm not sure it is just down to word of mouth success or failure. Poorly reviewed films have done well and well reviewed films have failed. In Alice's case I'm pretty sure more world-of-mouth was about the 3D and the effect than about the story.

I can't really comment on the Twilight films, not having seen any or having read any of the books, but I doubt that they could be worse than Alice. In fact I would hope that they would be much stronger narratively.

It's no coincidence that most of the strongest narrative driven "family" movies have been taken from novels;

Narnia
Harry Potter
Inkheart
Coraline
A Christmas Carol

compare them to "original" or other cross-media works such as

Night at the Museum,
GI Joe,
Alvin and the Chipmunks,
G-Force,
Tooth Fairy,
Transformers

its clear which are superior - simply because they're taken from a medium where story and characters come first, not visuals and pop music and one-liners. Some of the films in the second list don't really have a story as such beyond minor plot threads in the most basic way possible.

[PatrickvD]

I wish more studios would adopt Pixar's way of doing things. Or Christopher Nolan.. they're the most trustworthy Hollywood brands right now. To me anyway.

Disney needs to let the marketing-minded grip they have on their animation studio go. They're only suffocating themselves.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I believe Enchanted was the last time Disney made a critically acclaimed live action film, even if it did have animated segments.

All studios are capable of making good films, but they do want to make their investments worthwhile. It's much easier to green-light a project that delivers uncreative but "bankable" ideas, than ones involving more creative risks.

[toonaspie]

If the suits would stop meddling in on the creative process...then yes, it's possible.

[Flanger-Hanger]

I can't really comment on the Twilight films, not having seen any or having read any of the books, but I doubt that they could be worse than Alice. In fact I would hope that they would be much stronger narratively.

They are worse than Alice in more ways than narrative construction or effectiveness.

[ajmrowland]

this thread is making me wanna look up some lesser-known films like Battle for Terra.

and it should be noted that Night at the Museum is an adapted work.

[2099net]

this thread is making me wanna look up some lesser-known films like Battle for Terra.

and it should be noted that Night at the Museum is an adapted work.

In the same way that Shrek or Cat in the Hat were adapted works I would guess - i.e. little was taken from the original source.

[ajmrowland]

^yep. It was a children's picture book.

[PatrickvD]

I can't really comment on the Twilight films, not having seen any or having read any of the books, but I doubt that they could be worse than Alice. In fact I would hope that they would be much stronger narratively.

They are worse than Alice in more ways than narrative construction or effectiveness.

Twilight is worse in every imaginable way. Twilight is in the so deliciously bad it's good category.

[Super Aurora]

I can't really comment on the Twilight films, not having seen any or having read any of the books, but I doubt that they could be worse than Alice. In fact I would hope that they would be much stronger narratively.

They are worse than Alice in more ways than narrative construction or effectiveness.

Twilight is basically the author's wet dream in book form.