DVDizzy Forum

There's actually a pretty amusing parallel (though I wouldn't think it's intentional) between BigWeld Industries (a company that the plot of the movie revolves around) and Disney. Initially, the company is run by a visionary (Bigweld/Walt) whose goal is to produce great products for his customers. Then, the company is taken over by a backwards-thinking maniac (Ratchet/Eisner) who's interested only in squeezing every dollar out of the customers, and lessening quality to boot.

TM2-Megatron wrote:There's actually a pretty amusing parallel (though I wouldn't think it's intentional) between BigWeld Industries (a company that the plot of the movie revolves around) and Disney. Initially, the company is run by a visionary (Bigweld/Walt) whose goal is to produce great products for his customers. Then, the company is taken over by a backwards-thinking maniac (Ratchet/Eisner) who's interested only in squeezing every dollar out of the customers, and lessening quality to boot.

That's funny
Thanks for making me laugh, that's hard to do while I'm at work.

TM2-Megatron wrote:There's actually a pretty amusing parallel (though I wouldn't think it's intentional) between BigWeld Industries (a company that the plot of the movie revolves around) and Disney. Initially, the company is run by a visionary (Bigweld/Walt) whose goal is to produce great products for his customers. Then, the company is taken over by a backwards-thinking maniac (Ratchet/Eisner) who's interested only in squeezing every dollar out of the customers, and lessening quality to boot.

I think you can replace Disney with any company, and Eisner with any CEO.

Maerj wrote:It was really good, but I wouldn't say that it was better than anything Disney did for the last ten years. I try to take each film on its own merits and try not use one film to tear down others. Saying that its better than anything Disney has done since 1995 would include the following movies:

Pocahontas, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan, Dinosaur, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, Lilo & Stitch, Treasure Planet
Brother Bear, Home on the Range

Yes, I thought it was better then all those movies. Out of those 12 movies I only thought 2 of them was fearly good, but not anyplace near Robots.

TM2-Megatron wrote:There's actually a pretty amusing parallel (though I wouldn't think it's intentional) between BigWeld Industries (a company that the plot of the movie revolves around) and Disney. Initially, the company is run by a visionary (Bigweld/Walt) whose goal is to produce great products for his customers. Then, the company is taken over by a backwards-thinking maniac (Ratchet/Eisner) who's interested only in squeezing every dollar out of the customers, and lessening quality to boot.

I don't think it was intended but I also thought of Walt imidiatly when I saw Bigwled. The way he was the great icon and whent on TV to promote his factory. I guess that Walt Disney made such an impression on people in America thru his TV show that the creators of this movie were bound to have those ideals in their mind when they made the movie.

Does anyone know when this is coming to DVD?

I was wondering... in the film Robots, what was the music playing during the scene where Fender steals Rodney's foot & they "skate" on the ball bearings? I know it's a very famous piece of classical music, I just don't know the name. Thank You.

Yes, I know Robots isn't a Disney movie, but bear with me: I finally got around to watching this pretty decent CGI-animated feature ("From the makers of Ice Age") and enjoyed it. But throughout the whole movie I kept drawing parallells between the plot and a certain global entertainment conglomerate we all know and love. The vanished founder, the heartless usurpers of the throne, the switch of focus from quality and decency to cynical moneygrabbing. Maybe I'm pushing the argument too far, but for me it was like watching "Dream on, Silly Dreamer" with a cast of CGI robots. Has anyone else reflected on this puzzling "coincidence"?

This shouldn't be in the Disney Discussion board.

PeterPanfan wrote:This shouldn't be in the Disney Discussion board.

Not necessarily. This thread is like a little conspiracy agaisnt Disney thread.

Haven't seen Robots, so I wouldn't know anything about this subject.

I just sold this movie to a friend of mine, but I agree. I actually saw a comparison there a while ago. It really could be a knock at Disney or just coporate america in general.

Fox who have learned to exploit their "franchises" more than anyone else, even Disney, releasing a film which may be a critisism of Disney's business practices? And Blu Sky, who have only made three films, the third of which is a sequel to the 1st? In both cases "hello Pot, meet the black kettle".

2099net wrote:Fox who have learned to exploit their "franchises" more than anyone else, even Disney, releasing a film which may be a critisism of Disney's business practices? And Blu Sky, who have only made three films, the third of which is a sequel to the 1st? In both cases "hello Pot, meet the black kettle".

True, Fox is a major double dipper but what do you have against Blue Sky? They did a non-Ice Age short and a few SFX for others but compare the 1st three Pixar films to the 1st three Blue Sky. Toy Story to Ice Age, A Bug's Life to Robots, Toy Story 2 to Ice Age 2. See the similarities?

Well, I wasn't talking about double-dipping as such, but yes, Fox have that down to a fine art. I mean the fact that films like Alien Vs Requeim manage to drag two franchises with previously successful first films each to the level of the sewer. Or the constant need for Fox to not only keep The Simpsons on air, but to actually have the gall to charge for a theatrical movie which itself is a shadow of the show's tv episodes in the 3rd-6th seasons. I could go on... the fact Fox would rather put Brett Ratner on X-Men 3 in order to get a film out rather then wait for Bryan Singer to be available... Date/Epic/Meet the Spartans movies...

As for Blue Sky, you can't disguise the fact the third film is a sequel to the first.

2099net wrote:Well, I wasn't talking about double-dipping as such, but yes, Fox have that down to a fine art. I mean the fact that films like Alien Vs Requeim manage to drag two franchises with previously successful first films each to the level of the sewer. Or the constant need for Fox to not only keep The Simpsons on air, but to actually have the gall to charge for a theatrical movie which itself is a shadow of the show's tv episodes in the 3rd-6th seasons. I could go on... the fact Fox would rather put Brett Ratner on X-Men 3 in order to get a film out rather then wait for Bryan Singer to be available... Date/Epic/Meet the Spartans movies...

As for Blue Sky, you can't disguise the fact the third film is a sequel to the first.

Ok, I see your first point but the Blue Sky thing is exactly what I'm saying but showing you that Pixar's third film was ALSO a sequel to there first.

Well, as many people will know, I'm not exactly a Pixar "enthusiast" finding most of their films overrated, so pointing that out doesn't sway me one way or the other.

2099net wrote:Well, as many people will know, I'm not exactly a Pixar "enthusiast" finding most of their films overrated, so pointing that out doesn't sway me one way or the other.

Ah, yes. True. But I was ponting out the success of that formula for another studio. Oh well, continue with talk of 'Robots' everyone.

It's nice,not memorable but not bad.
I guess Blu-Sky are a Pixar rip-off (thought A Bug's Life is better then Robots and also Toy Story is better then Ice Age and both Ice Age films are better then Robots).
Why they're robots? .
And i agree with PeterPanFan,they thread should be in other section of the forum.

Dear PeterPanFan and Ariel's Prince; as I said in the first posting, I am aware that Robots is not a Disney movie, and that any discussion of it should hence be in the off-topic section. However, I did not particularly want to discuss the movie Robots, but rather the parallells to Disney, Disney movies and the Disney corporation that I found, or imagined I found, in it. I also find 2099net's comment about Fox own artistic standards astute, but a little beside the point. We never really believed in Fox, now did we?

Ah okay then i guess it is the place for it .