DVDizzy Forum

buffalobill wrote:John Carter was such a turd. They shouldn't even bother releasing it on home video. Best forgotten. Put out Song of the South instead to make up the $200 Million JC lost.

I, for one, loved John Carter. the plot was thick, but not confusing, and all the other elements were balanced.

ajmrowland wrote:

buffalobill wrote:John Carter was such a turd. They shouldn't even bother releasing it on home video. Best forgotten. Put out Song of the South instead to make up the $200 Million JC lost.

I, for one, loved John Carter. the plot was thick, but not confusing, and all the other elements were balanced.

Agreed.

Good. Now if only Iger had the brains to put someone in that was more friendly to "vintage" Disney. That totally isn't going to happen, but one can hope. Let us not forget, at the end of the day, Ross was merely Iger's minion. I agree with a piece writing in the LA Times, if Iger puts in another Ross and that one blows up like this, next time it could be Iger getting the blame.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/ ... signs.html

Are you all high?

Rich Ross hasn't been running the Disney channel for two and a half years. Has anything changed over there? Not that I know. It will continue to suck.

And John Carter isn't nearly as bad as some people are claiming it to be. It was the marketing and allowing the budget to spin out of control that killed it. Especially given that Ross was hired to control crazy budgets after Dick Cook spent a whopping $500 million on the Pirates sequels. And that didn't even include marketing.

He failed in everything he set out to do. And the limited success under his watch; Cars, Toy Story 3 and Tangled can all be attributed to John Lasseter. Not Ross.

As much I want to rejoice (and really, I do), I won't just yet. I fear that we'll get yet another tool placed as studio chief, resulting in even more crappy films (and for the record, I didn't think of Dick Cook as an idiot).

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:And he didn't have anything to do with Tangled and Frozen getting changed, did he?

No, Ross was just involved in live-action.

Hmm, I'm not too sure about that. From what I understand, Rich Ross did have some control over the animation department, albeit not as much as the live-action side. For example, he stopped a version of Jack and the Beanstalk from being produced in 2010 to "avoid confusion" with the live-action Jack the Giant Killer coming out soon (), as related in this blog post. It wouldn't surprise me if he had anything to do with the whole re-titling debacle.

Wonderlicious wrote:

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: No, Ross was just involved in live-action.

Hmm, I'm not too sure about that. From what I understand, Rich Ross did have some control over the animation department, albeit not as much as the live-action side. For example, he stopped a version of Jack and the Beanstalk from being produced in 2010 to "avoid confusion" with the live-action Jack the Giant Killer coming out soon (), as related in this blog post. It wouldn't surprise me if he had anything to do with the whole re-titling debacle.

If that's the case (And I'm not saying it will happen) but I can only hope that Frozen gets re-titled to its original.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I still say John Carter was a turd. I don't care about marketing. If it was good word of mouth would have prevented it from losing almost a quarter of a billion dollars & leaving theaters a couple weeks after its release. Ford had the Edsel & Disney has John Carter & no amount of good marketing was going to sell it. They could put out a $30 coupon & I wouldn't buy it except for the DMR code & as a 4 piece coaster set (3D, 2D, dvd & digital copy discs).

^Dont overestimate word-of-mouth. There are a bunch of factors that can generate financial success/failure.

Or have you already forgotten how successful the Transformers movies are, even after audience-bashing?

John Carter shold have made more money... if the ad campaign had been better, I think that it would have. They needed a campaign early on saying "Who is John Carter?" and then of course explaining who is is, it would have made the public more aware of what this was all about.

Sorry, I'm lost here. who is Rich Boss exactly?

PixarFan2006 wrote:Sorry, I'm lost here. who is Rich Boss exactly?

He's the one fired Mickey Mouse and created Hannah Montana.

PatrickvD wrote:Are you all high?

Rich Ross hasn't been running the Disney channel for two and a half years. Has anything changed over there? Not that I know. It will continue to suck.

I actually think it is worse now. At least during HSM, Hannah Montana, and WoWP's prime, Disney Channel, whether one here has any respect for those shows or not, could be viewed as fresh and exciting. It was an exciting time for the Disney Channel and it grew exponentially in viewership and notoriety. Now, the channel is growing stale, IMO. The shows aren't generating the excitement they once were. It needs a reboot. New programming blocks need to be created. IMO of course.

He is responsible for the loss of Vault Disney. That programming block should have stayed. Had they aired the above shows and Vault Disney. We would have had the best of both worlds.

The_Iceflash wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:Are you all high?

Rich Ross hasn't been running the Disney channel for two and a half years. Has anything changed over there? Not that I know. It will continue to suck.

I actually think it is worse now. At least during HSM, Hannah Montana, and WoWP's prime, Disney Channel, whether one here has any respect for those shows or not, could be viewed as fresh and exciting. It was an exciting time for the Disney Channel and it grew exponentially in viewership and notoriety. Now, the channel is growing stale, IMO. The shows aren't generating the excitement they once were. It needs a reboot. New programming blocks need to be created. IMO of course.

He is responsible for the loss of Vault Disney. That programming block should have stayed. Had they aired the above shows and Vault Disney. We would have had the best of both worlds.

I kind of have to agree with this. Although I despised Hannah Montana, everything new on the channel seems to be trying desperately to re-capture the success of that one show. WoWP was a bit sickening in it's likeness to Harry Potter, but I think it gradually built up on it's own instead of falling in it's shadow completely. HSM was a TON of hype, but we can't deny that it was good cheap entertainment. The series did well as it's budget increased. HSM3 is proof of that.

I'm actually more interested in what's going on with Disney Junior as opposed to what's happening on Disney Channel these days. I think overall DJr's programming is immensely stronger in nearly every aspect compared to the tacky cheap stuff on DC. They need a new vision. They're trying too hard to sell into the tween market, and I think they're getting lost in it and losing their identity.

If I had my say, I would ask all creative employee's to watch Nickelodeon for one week and create a slate of shows that are polar opposite. Right now, it seems both networks are basically providing the same shows. Why doesn't Disney try a tween game show? Tim Burton is successful in the teen crowd, create a creepy teen drama that suggests that style. Let's go back to the days when show's were about normal tweens with seemingly nothing super unique about them like Lizzie McGuire.

Speaking of Lizzie, why not look into the company's own past. If theme park ride films are so successful ( ), could a TV show work? An Enchanted Tiki Room, Jungle Cruise, and Magic Kingdom show might work a whole lot better on the small screen than the big screen. How about a Mickey Mouse Club re-boot?

Lastly, I think DC desperately needs the return of Vault Disney. Even if it doesn't start until 10 or 11pm, I think it would be beneficial. It would have to be better than just replaying the same block that started 2 hours prior.

singerguy04 wrote:Let's go back to the days when show's were about normal tweens with seemingly nothing super unique about them like Lizzie McGuire.

Well, there's Good Luck Charlie which is about a regular teenage girl whose not a music or television star and doesn't have magical powers. It's actually kind of watchable and funny, despite the teenage girl being the only intelligent character and everyone else is portrayed as stupid. And for a show called "Good Luck Charlie", the baby barely has an impact on the stories.

But, I agree. I hate how almost all of these tween sitcoms involve characters who try to be famous or are famous. It kind of sends a message to the audience that you need fame to live a happy life. That's kind of what makes Wizards of Waverly Place and Good Luck Charlie so refreshing in that they don't deal with that. Not to mention, the actors on those shows don't over-act to the point of annoyance.

I was also thinking about the other day where every Disney sitcom is required to have a laugh track. Didn't the huge success of Even Stevens and Lizzie McGuire show that you don't need laughter in the background to have a well-liked show. You can even compare this situation to network sitcoms. New Girl, Parks and Recreation and 30 Rock don't have laugh tracks and they're very funny. Two & a Half Men and Two Broke Girls have laugh tracks and they're awful. I don't think I've even chuckled at a single solitary joke on Two Broke Girls.

estefan wrote: I was also thinking about the other day where every Disney sitcom is required to have a laugh track. Didn't the huge success of Even Stevens and Lizzie McGuire show that you don't need laughter in the background to have a well-liked show. You can even compare this situation to network sitcoms. New Girl, Parks and Recreation and 30 Rock don't have laugh tracks and they're very funny. Two & a Half Men and Two Broke Girls have laugh tracks and they're awful. I don't think I've even chuckled at a single solitary joke on Two Broke Girls.

Well, the Jonas show didn't have a laugh track. Granted, it was even more deplorable than the rest of Disney's lineup.