Is Disney still capable of making a truly great film?

[pvdfan]

Did I miss where Disney made good live action movies...ever? People may enjoy them (as do I) but good ones were rare compared to crap them. Now they are 99% crap.

[DisneyJedi]

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.

Don't even get me started on that bullshit that people call literature! Those stories- Twilight- are just a downright mockery of real vampires, which don't sparkle, BTW, and it is uncreative!

[pap64]

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

Don't even get me started on that bullshit that people call literature! Those stories- Twilight- are just a downright mockery of real vampires, which don't sparkle, BTW, and it is uncreative!

Not to mention that the morals are very questionable at best. First, you have a main female character who is very dry emotionally and appears to have fallen in love with a man that doesn't care for her while using another one for her own purposes. Then there's Edward, a character so unappealing I am surprised that Bella found something to like about it. Finally there's Jacob who is supposed to have some brains, but is in fact in the story to provide lots of cheesecake goodness.

Very weird how feminists attack the Disney princess stories for their portrayal of women, mainly that they are very passive and wait for a man to come and rescue them. Meanwhile, Twilight is all about a passive character whose two love attractions are at war with each other while she just watches them.

Why hasn't ANYONE criticized this movie for its portrayal of women and teenagers in general? Does children's media truly take top priority over any other form of media? Is there a double standard at play here?

But now I am rambling and going VERY off topic here, my apologies.

[Escapay]

Did I miss where Disney made good live action movies...ever?

The 1950s and 1960s had a fair amount of good live-action movies. The ratio of Good:Bad was much different then than it is now.

Those stories- Twilight- are just a downright mockery of real vampires, which don't sparkle, BTW, and it is uncreative!

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...REAL VAMPIRES? REAL?



albert

[estefan]

Those stories- Twilight- are just a downright mockery of real vampires, which don't sparkle, BTW, and it is uncreative!

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...REAL VAMPIRES? REAL?

I think what Jedi means is that Twilight ignores the classic vampire rules that has become so much a part of their identity, e.g. sun burning them, sleeping in the coffins, stake through the heart kills them, etc. Things that relate to Dracula, Nosferatu, Spike and Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but not Edward.

[DisneyJedi]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...REAL VAMPIRES? REAL?

I think what Jedi means is that Twilight ignores the classic vampire rules that has become so much a part of their identity, e.g. sun burning them, sleeping in the coffins, stake through the heart kills them, etc. Things that relate to Dracula, Nosferatu, Spike and Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but not Edward.

Exactly. Not to mention Bella is a freakin' mary-sue!

[Phil Johnson]

I can't weigh in on Twilight. Made my girl go see it with her friends.

But on the Disney live action, I don't see the much difference in the ratio between now and the past. Is "Gus" considered a "great film"? It's fun, but not a classic. The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes? Anything with Medfield High?

The difference between Disney and Pixar is that Pixar is basically a boutique studio that will put out one killer film every 2-3 years. Disney is a major film studio that has to keep pumping out content on a regular basis. That leads to different kinds of films.

And I agree with the comments about CGI and event films. In fact I was listening to an interview on NPR last week where they were talking about event films being the only ones to draw at theaters because people decide they can wait for story films on Netflix.

We do the same thing. "Looks like a good story, but it's a Netflix-er". Those films, if done well, are more like seeing beautiful art on a huge screen. Something that is story driven can be watched on a smaller screen (for less money) without losing much impact.

Disney simply needs to know where those two markets are and promote their films accordingly. Instead of spending a bazillion dollars on promoting a great story-driven live action, they could put it in art houses for a month then get it on DVD where it can make more money. Art houses avoid the "straight to DVD" stigma.

[Avaitor]

I think what Jedi means is that Twilight ignores the classic vampire rules that has become so much a part of their identity, e.g. sun burning them, sleeping in the coffins, stake through the heart kills them, etc. Things that relate to Dracula, Nosferatu, Spike and Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but not Edward.

Exactly. Not to mention Bella is a freakin' mary-sue!

Mary Sue? More like pure evil...

[Escapay]

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...REAL VAMPIRES? REAL?

I think what Jedi means is that Twilight ignores the classic vampire rules that has become so much a part of their identity, e.g. sun burning them, sleeping in the coffins, stake through the heart kills them, etc. Things that relate to Dracula, Nosferatu, Spike and Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but not Edward.

But that's exactly my point. (emphasis mine)

Vampires are fictional.

There are no real "rules" on how to treat a fictional character. The very word "fiction" already suggests that it is imaginary and created by the author. Just because a lot of people treat vampires one way doesn't mean it's the only way. Stephenie Meyer makes vampires sparkle and angsty. That's her fictional take on the vampire. It doesn't make them any less "real" than the works of Anne Rice or Bram Stoker.

That's why I laughed at the phrase "real vampires." They're not real, and so even though there are established expectations of what a vampire should be, the Twilight books give their own interpretation of vampirism. People who have a problem with that are being petty. It's a fictional species, for goodness sake. I could write my own vampire book and make them go tanning because nuclear radiation made them need solar energy to function when they're not sucking blood. Doesn't make my vampires any less "real" than Barnabas Collins.

albert

[Super Aurora]

Those stories- Twilight- are just a downright mockery of real vampires, which don't sparkle, BTW, and it is uncreative!

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...REAL VAMPIRES? REAL?

[PeterPanfan]

I agree with Scaps. I mean, I enjoy my vampires as much as anyone else does, but there are WAY more reasons to criticize the Twilight Saga than "not following the vampire rules."

I mean, does anyone bash Stephen King for 'Salem's Lot (Well, no, because he can actually write fleshed out characters...)

[disdis]

wow this sure turned into a twilight talk pretty fast. :?

Anyways, in case anyone is curious The Sorcerers Apprentice is sitting at 34% on Rotten Tomatoes with 18 good reviews and 36 bad reviews. It could still go up or down. (hopefully up).

Fingers crossed. :roll:

[2099net]

wow this sure turned into a twilight talk pretty fast.

Anyways, in case anyone is curious The Sorcerers Apprentice is sitting at 34% on Rotten Tomatoes with 18 good reviews and 36 bad reviews. It could still go up or down. (hopefully up).

Fingers crossed.

Are you really expecting The Sorcerer's Apprentice to be a good film? Now, its possible it could be - I find Blu-sky's animated Horton Hears a Who to be a much better and rewarding film than I expected it to be - its unlikely that such a thin concept can be padded to a run-time of 2 hours. Be it based on the Fantasia short, or the original poem, there's simply not enough there for a two hour movie. So most of the narrative will have to be made-up - and I would guess like most movies these days, it will be specifically written to showcase special effects and not to define or further the characters.

A while back, sit-com writer (and keen videogame player) Graham Lineham was interviewed about stories in videogames and he made an interesting observation. Videogame stories generally aren't written by people who are well-read, but by people who have watched lots of movies. And generally, they take the best bits out of movies, with little regard to the actual need or skill of telling a good story. So we end up with clichéd characters, participating in clichéd events and actions, with big, bold and clichéd visuals.

I feel that's the problem with big-budget movies today. They may be written and filmed by people who are well-read, people who do have an eye and feel for character and narrative. But sadly, the money men in charge of the big studios don't. They have only seen movies, and only think in the terms of other movies. And sadly, the money men most often have the final say.

Thus we get films like The Sorcerer's Apprentice which while it may end up being a good film, was almost certainly commissioned and greenlit based solely on its title - with the actual story likely to be nothing more than an afterthought (and I would hazard a guess more than a little derivative of Harry Potter).

As an aside, since when did the ideal length of a movie change from 90mins to 2 hours or more? Could that be one of the reasons so many movies feel so disjointed these days? Because people confuse quantity with quality? The longer the film, the more filmmakers feel that they have to include loud, action set-pieces simply to keep the audience awake! More does not always equal better.

[ajmrowland]

The ideallength is still a bit under two hours, but some movies do really work better when longer. The Last Airbender, though I havent seen it, would probably be such a case. Harry Potter 3 as well.

[Duckburger]

From what I've heard and read, The Last Airbender would have worked better as a 0 minutes film.

[DARTH KNITE]

I say yes, but they haven't the backbone they had in the 90s to take risks. The Little Matchgirl, (featured on The Little Mermaid Platinum Edition) is proof they can do what they used to, but are simply not willing.

[Jay]

I though "Princess and the Frog" was just as good as "Hercules", "Mulan" and "Tarzan" personally. I hope "Tangled" turns out well it looks Shrekesque from the preview but I have hope! I just wish they would change the title to Rapunzel! I mean the last princess story with the name and the title and they rename it. Like really? Idk but I hope soon Disney stops fearing the media and general public and goes back to making great movies again soon.

[Rudy Matt]

Did I miss where Disney made good live action movies...ever? People may enjoy them (as do I) but good ones were rare compared to crap them. Now they are 99% crap.

So Dear to My Heart
Treasure Island
The Sword and the Rose
The Story of Robin Hood and his Merrie Men
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Pollyanna
Old Yeller
Darby O'Gill and the Little People
Third Man on the Mountain
Kidnapped
The Parent Trap
The Fighting Prince of Donegal
Swiss Family Robinson
The Three Lives of Thomasina
Those Calloways
Mary Poppins
The Happiest Millionaire

[DisneyJedi]

From what I've heard and read, The Last Airbender would have worked better as a 0 minutes film.

Well, then, it wouldn't be much of a movie then, would it?

I thought "Princess and the Frog" was just as good as "Hercules", "Mulan" and "Tarzan" personally.

That's exactly what I think. I personally think it was a pretty good comeback to the hand-drawn musical, despite the fact it didn't perform as amazing as we had hoped it would. I can only hope we get more hand-drawn animated musicals in the future.

[Jay]

From what I've heard and read, The Last Airbender would have worked better as a 0 minutes film.

Well, then, it wouldn't be much of a movie then, would it?

I thought "Princess and the Frog" was just as good as "Hercules", "Mulan" and "Tarzan" personally.

That's exactly what I think. I personally think it was a pretty good comeback to the hand-drawn musical, despite the fact it didn't perform as amazing as we had hoped it would. I can only hope we get more hand-drawn animated musicals in the future.

I know there are so many awesome fairy tales they can adapt and make classics like The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. I wouldn't mind another darker film a la the Hunchback but I highly doubt that anytime soon. I hope Tangled comes out nicely and is waaaay better than the previews!