DVDizzy Forum

For those of you are watching, "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is on TCM right now. I remember when it was usually shown on the Disney Channel when it was part of the now-defunct "Vault Disney". This was the only time, the Disney Channel was shown in a widescreen format. I used to have it on VHS since I taped off of the Disney Channel when "Vault Disney" was still existed. Kudos to Turner Classic Movies for showing this classic 1954 film. Give it a thumbs up!!!

Eh, this is not the first time they've aired this movie. It was on a couple months ago when they were doing Oscar movies.

I've seen parts of the movie and it looks okay.

I think it's great that they are showing Disney movies on TCM, but only three have been shown so far (The Absent Minded Professor and the Barefoot Executive being the others). I hope they dig deeper into the Disney Vault and show some harder to find Disney movies.

Yeah, remember the days when the Disney Channel aired, you know, DISNEY movies....it's a shame that OTHER networks are the only source to get vintage Disney today. Ya gotta wonder what Walt would think if he saw that the very films he made were no longer welcome on a network that bares his name.

I'm pretty sure Walt would be appalled at the Disney Channel's current output and its severe avoidance of programming any classic Disney entertainment or educational shows.

The fact that the people in charge of Walt's empire steadfastly refuse, in most instances, to recognize that Walt made a conscious effort to appeal to all ages, rather than just the under-12 age group, and to emulate that approach in recent years, is a very loud warning alarm that nobody appears to be hearing.

I guarantee the Disney suits that if they either started putting classic Disney TV shows back on the Disney Channel or launched a Disney Classics Channel that featured nothing but pre-1989 Disney feature films, documentaries, and TV movies, they'd get huge ratings.

Perhaps they're not interested in that.

Whenever I say Walt would not approve of the current state of the Disney Channel I usually get blasted with comments like "How do you know what Walt would want?" or "Walt never lived in the past so he would embrace the Disney Channel of today" I disagree with all of those notions. If Walt didn't care about his older films then why rerelease them? They always make money in every reissue no mattere the format.

When I've asked Disney why they don't start a classics channel they tell me it's because no one watched Vault Disney when it was on and they don't have enough old material to justify a classics channel. Uh, then what was the original launch of the Disney Channel? People seem to forget that Vault Disney was purposely dropped to create demand for the Vault Disney DVDs that Disney screwed up the release of. That is the only reason it was removed to make way for tween reruns 24/7. I think a classics Disney Channel would be great and even though I have most of the shows on DVd already I'd tune in frequently.

UncleEd wrote:Whenever I say Walt would not approve of the current state of the Disney Channel I usually get blasted with comments like "How do you know what Walt would want?" or "Walt never lived in the past so he would embrace the Disney Channel of today" I disagree with all of those notions. If Walt didn't care about his older films then why rerelease them? They always make money in every reissue no mattere the format.

Agreed.

UncleEd wrote:When I've asked Disney why they don't start a classics channel they tell me it's because no one watched Vault Disney when it was on and they don't have enough old material to justify a classics channel.

Pssshhhht.... that's a load of crap and they know it. Especially so when you extend the date for what constitutes a Disney "classic" to the early 90s (so as to include not only the animation revival but also films like The Rocketeer). They not only have a ton of programming that's contained in what they've released on DVD, but also a ton of what they haven't released from the vault. Just these pages here show what I mean:
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/tvmovies-old.html
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/tvmovies-80s.html
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oldliveaction.htm
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/liveaction.htm
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/ultimateclassics.htm
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/miscellaneous.html

There's enough there to program at least a good solid year of any TV channel. When you add all the shows from the anthology series that have never been released as well, it just adds to it.

UncleEd wrote:Uh, then what was the original launch of the Disney Channel? People seem to forget that Vault Disney was purposely dropped to create demand for the Vault Disney DVDs that Disney screwed up the release of.

Good point. Can I ask you something? What was it exactly that Disney did that screwed that series up? I love my Swiss Family Robinson, Pollyanna, The Love Bug, and Old Yeller DVDs, and I was looking forward to more. Was it a marketing issue, or packaging, or was it the expense vs. the sales returns, or what?

UncleEd wrote:That is the only reason it was removed to make way for tween reruns 24/7. I think a classics Disney Channel would be great and even though I have most of the shows on DVD already I'd tune in frequently.

One would think that the success of TCM, the Fox Movie Channel, TVLand, and Boomerang would clue Disney in. I don't think they're paying attention, myself.

I don't know if my point was obvious but I was saying that Disney had enough content to start their channel in 1984 so with everything from 84 to the early 2000's there would be even more content to air. Look at Toon Disney where most of the shows aren't even Disney's and many of them are aired in 1 hour blocks several times a day. This is why I don't buy they don't have the content to justify a channel of classic Disney.


I think poor marketing is what ruined the Vault Disney series. They were impossible to find. Best Buy had some and no other store had them until months later. Then the price point was 30.00. There was no advertising either. I only learned of them online. I rather liked how the Treasures were in December and the Vault Disney's were almost 6 months later. Then in year 2 you could only find 20,000 Leagues but not the Love Bug. In fact Best Buy, Circuit City, and Media Play all told me it did not exist. I had to get it online. Then when the one discers came out either later that summer or the following you I could only find them online. It was all poor marketing that ruined this line and I think a lack of belief in their older films by the marketing executives contributed. It's the same reason why we probably haven't see a Zorro box set released mainstream or a B&W version or a complete Swamp Fox, etc. There was so much that they could have done and out of sheer laziness and lack of vision the films of Walt have been treated like trash.


Speaking of what would Walt think, do you think he would like the Pirates of the Carribian films? Although I like elements about them I don't think he would have greenlit them as ride tie ins but possibly as their own thing and I don't think some of the content would have made Walt happy. The core adventure aspects and scope reminds me of the Adventure films Walt did make though.

^ It depends I think, Walt would probably realize that times have changed since his time and what was being put out by his compan. But I think that he wouldn't approve of how dark the movies are. There's probably a number of scenes he probably wouldn't have approve of, like all the action scenes would be toned down I bet, the general look of the Pirates in the moonlight and in Curse of The Black Pearl when Barbossa cuts Elisabeths hand so the blood goes on the coin. But all in all, if he had made it I bet it would resemble the Swiss Family Robinson as far as action, violence, language etc.

One thing that bugged me from day one on the first Piarates movie is how the curse worked. The way Barbossa tells the story it should work as a gradual thing but it apparently doesn't. I understand why they had Jack instantly cursed and it could still work if by taking the gold out then he'd be cursed as if he had been cursed with the rest. But it just makes more sense for the pirates to have been cursed more and more with time and not instantly cursed.I also don't get how the one could blow up and be lights out since he was still cursed he could have gone back together, right?


And why do we NEED to have strong language and sexual content to make a film "Better"? I know people claim it makes a film more realistic but what about all the films of the past that didn't need to rely on this stuff, does that make them less great? I think that film makers put this stuff in just because they can and it really offers nothing to the film. I don't think Walt would have just opened up the flood gates to his brand name to include what the world is doing. People forget that Walt was a man of integrity and old fashioned morality. I just can't see him changing with the times because the content of his work didn't change over the 40 year period he was making it. You could always count on the Disney values in his work whether it be animated, live action, or theme parks. It was all age material and I think new Hollywood has forgotten how to make the same kind of SMART all age material. Today anything that is supposed to fall into this catergory has the mandatory burp or fart gags and some gross out humor to boot. Even when they run ads for the old Walt films they do this. How many of use remember the Lady and the Tramp ad with the burping pitbull? That's even false adverstising since that's not in the film let alone a slap in the face to Walt's Legacy. I just get tired of the kinds of films that get passed off as family films and either there is sexual or mature content or it's pure drek. We need to get back to making quality family films again. I hope John Lasseter will turn things around at Disney since Pixar is one of the few smart family film companies around.

UncleEd wrote:I don't know if my point was obvious but I was saying that Disney had enough content to start their channel in 1984 so with everything from 84 to the early 2000's there would be even more content to air. Look at Toon Disney where most of the shows aren't even Disney's and many of them are aired in 1 hour blocks several times a day. This is why I don't buy they don't have the content to justify a channel of classic Disney.

Agreed. I think they somehow want TDC to run on autopilot without much thought. Unfortunately, that's not the way to program a cable channel. While some people will tune in simply because the channel bears the Disney name, most won't.

Again, I think they're not aiming to appeal to all ages, but just the 12-and-under demographic. The overall concept of the Disney Channel, as I believe its programmers view it, is for parents to park their little ones in front of the tube, switch on TDC, and let the kids be hypnotized by whatever junk floats across the screen. Apparently there are enough soccer moms out there that do just that, that it validates their myopic theory of TV programming.

UncleEd wrote:I think poor marketing is what ruined the Vault Disney series. They were impossible to find. Best Buy had some and no other store had them until months later. Then the price point was 30.00. There was no advertising either. I only learned of them online. I rather liked how the Treasures were in December and the Vault Disney's were almost 6 months later. Then in year 2 you could only find 20,000 Leagues but not the Love Bug. In fact Best Buy, Circuit City, and Media Play all told me it did not exist. I had to get it online. Then when the one discers came out either later that summer or the following you I could only find them online. It was all poor marketing that ruined this line and I think a lack of belief in their older films by the marketing executives contributed. It's the same reason why we probably haven't see a Zorro box set released mainstream or a B&W version or a complete Swamp Fox, etc. There was so much that they could have done and out of sheer laziness and lack of vision the films of Walt have been treated like trash.

That's interesting - my experience with Best Buy has been that pretty much all the Vault Disney titles have been available, even when I thought some were OOP. Then again I usually don't ask for assistance from the clerks, since they don't know anything about their product, other than that something's in stock or isn't.

However, I agree that some Disney titles are given short shrift while others are widely distributed, and I agree that Disney has emphasized its newer titles at the expense of its classic titles (with the exception of the various animated classic features). But I think that classics for all the studios are relegated to a secondary (and rather feeble) marketing effort in comparison with newer titles. Every once in a while I'll find out that some classic movie I like was released a few months ago and I hadn't even heard a peep about it, even online.

UncleEd wrote:Speaking of what would Walt think, do you think he would like the Pirates of the Carribian films? Although I like elements about them I don't think he would have greenlit them as ride tie ins but possibly as their own thing and I don't think some of the content would have made Walt happy. The core adventure aspects and scope reminds me of the Adventure films Walt did make though.

Overall, I do think Walt would be amazed and highly pleased at the POTC films and their incredible box office success. There may be some minor elements of the films here and there he wouldn't have been too keen on (I can't honestly imagine what), but taking a man out of his time and asking him if he'd like this or that about something is a bit pointless. No doubt he'd have an opinion and probably recommendations of what to change about the films while they were being made, but then again, who knows? He also might have recognized that 40 years after the original ride was made, times and sensibilities had changed (as had moviemaking and moviegoers expectations), so that there was nothing wrong with rum jokes or slightly saltier language than what might have been heard in the 60s.

As far as them being ride tie-ins, if you're referring to the recent refurbishments of the ride at the park to reflect elements of the films, he might have actually been open to it. Everything I've seen of both the films and the ride look to have been made at easing in a more seamless connection between the two without losing the story or the charm of the original ride attraction. And he knew that changes would be made in future years, that inevitably there would be technological advancements and other reasons for updates and refurbishments to the ride and its story. The movies, obviously, were inspired by the ride and its story, but really are their own thing. And since they've been so monumentally successful, it really only makes sense that there'd be a desire and an effort to link the two. I think Walt would have understood that and been open to it.

One thing that's been said about Walt countless times was that he was unpredictable, so playing the game of "What Would Walt Do?" has to be played with a big grain of salt - on some things he might have liked or agreed with them, but on others, it's a toss-up.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:^ It depends I think, Walt would probably realize that times have changed since his time and what was being put out by his compan. But I think that he wouldn't approve of how dark the movies are.

Why not? The ride's pretty dark. I mean think about it - you start off the ride in the dark, and you end in the dark, with little glowing eyes looking at you as you travel up a waterfall. But not only that, there are skeletons, constant talk about dead men.

But thematically speaking, a lot of that has to do with being truer to the era being portrayed. That time period was not as squeaky clean as it may have appeared from the ride. Also, there are many things the mass audience of today is comfortable with in their entertainment that the mass audience of 40 years ago would not have been.

Also, the way the ride is lit, compared with how the films are lit, is due primarily to cinematic conventions of the 40s, 50s, and 60s vs. today. Back then, most films were lit with direct light, due to the nature of the film stocks available at the time. As film technology advanced, and films were able to be lit in increasingly lower degrees of light, many filmmakers took advantage of this fact.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:There's probably a number of scenes he probably wouldn't have approve of, like all the action scenes would be toned down I bet, the general look of the Pirates in the moonlight and in Curse of The Black Pearl when Barbossa cuts Elisabeths hand so the blood goes on the coin. But all in all, if he had made it I bet it would resemble the Swiss Family Robinson as far as action, violence, language etc.

The action scenes would be toned down how? In their intensity? In the way they're shot, the way they're edited, or the way the action is choreographed? You honestly think Walt would micromanage the POTC films in such a way? The look of the pirates in the moonlight isn't that much more horrifying than the skeletons on the ride. The only difference is that they have eyes and are walking and talking and moving around, so it looks a little more ghastly. But that's intentional. Walt liked giving audiences a good scare. The shot of Elizabeth's hand being cut isn't particularly gory, either.

He didn't micromanage his directors and tell them how to make their films when he was alive, what makes you think he'd do it with today's directors?

I think he would have toned the action scenes down in their intensity, to me it just seems a tad more violent than what Disney was making in his day back then it was more like cartoon violence. While the ride is one of the more darker rides, so is Haunted Mansion I'm guesing Disney purposely made them darker and more scary then the rest of his rides at Disneyland, that way there were somethings for adults or teenagers to enjoy instead of just rides geared more towards younger kids like the Teacup Ride, Dumbo, and the various ones based off movies like Snow White's Forest, Winnie The Pooh, Pinocchio etc. However while the ride itself is dark, there's also non-frightening elements to it like the Pirates who found the rum and the pirates who are dunking the mayor seem more comedic than scary so it has a balance to it. I wasn't purposely trying to imply Walt would micromanage the movies, but I just think he might have done it in a different way, a way more along the lines of his earlier adventure/action movies like 20,000 Leagues and Swiss Family Robinson

UncleEd wrote:One thing that bugged me from day one on the first Piarates movie is how the curse worked. The way Barbossa tells the story it should work as a gradual thing but it apparently doesn't. I understand why they had Jack instantly cursed and it could still work if by taking the gold out then he'd be cursed as if he had been cursed with the rest. But it just makes more sense for the pirates to have been cursed more and more with time and not instantly cursed.I also don't get how the one could blow up and be lights out since he was still cursed he could have gone back together, right?

It was always my understanding that Jack was with Barbossa and the other pirates when they stole the Aztec gold, and then each took a coin from it. The way I understood the curse to work was that it wouldn't be lifted until each and every stolen coin was put back and then the blood of an innocent was spilled on it.

As far as the blown-up pirate... no idea. More than likely a loose end.

UncleEd wrote:And why do we NEED to have strong language and sexual content to make a film "Better"? I know people claim it makes a film more realistic but what about all the films of the past that didn't need to rely on this stuff, does that make them less great?

No, not at all. But I don't really see where this is leading insofar as discussion of either the POTC films or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea are concerned.

UncleEd wrote:I think that film makers put this stuff in just because they can and it really offers nothing to the film.

Sometimes, probably. Other times it's a reflection of realism, and some writers and/or directors and/or producers want that in their films. Witness the scene in Speed where Keanu's character discovers the bomb under the bus and utters "F--- me!" and Alan Ruck's character, repeating what Keanu says to Jeff Daniels' cop partner character over the phone, hesitates a moment and says "oh darn..." and it gets a laugh. It gets that laugh because audiences realize that Keanu's reaction was probably what any adult cop would say to such a discovery in real life, and that censoring the comment is a bit of a denial of that reality.

UncleEd wrote:I don't think Walt would have just opened up the flood gates to his brand name to include what the world is doing. People forget that Walt was a man of integrity and old fashioned morality. I just can't see him changing with the times because the content of his work didn't change over the 40 year period he was making it.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to disagree with this. While the content of his work might not have seemed to change over the 40 year period he was working on it, it definitely did, in some ways for the better, in some ways for worse. He might have been old-fashioned, but he wasn't a saint and wasn't without flaws. The man himself cursed regularly amongst his colleagues at the studio. He smoked like a chimney. And he did sometimes feel tied down as an artist by being "Walt Disney," this publically-adulated paragon of cinematic virtue. There were times he wanted to break out of that and make the kinds of films that other studios were making, but because of his image and the image of the studio at the time, he felt he couldn't.

UncleEd wrote:You could always count on the Disney values in his work whether it be animated, live action, or theme parks. It was all age material and I think new Hollywood has forgotten how to make the same kind of SMART all age material. Today anything that is supposed to fall into this catergory has the mandatory burp or fart gags and some gross out humor to boot. Even when they run ads for the old Walt films they do this. How many of use remember the Lady and the Tramp ad with the burping pitbull? That's even false adverstising since that's not in the film let alone a slap in the face to Walt's Legacy. I just get tired of the kinds of films that get passed off as family films and either there is sexual or mature content or it's pure drek. We need to get back to making quality family films again. I hope John Lasseter will turn things around at Disney since Pixar is one of the few smart family film companies around.

I agree with you overall, but I think in some ways, trying to recapture the filmmaking sensibilities of Walt Disney and his animators and story developers and producers from previous generations is kind of like trying to capture lightning in a bottle. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have really only been the two filmmakers to even come close to capturing it. When Ron Miller and Card Walker and Donn Tatum were in charge of the company, the general modus operandi was for Disney to continue on making films (particularly live action films) in the older filmmaking style they had been using for decades, even as changing public sensibilities and perceptions essentially relegated Disney films to that of being more "children's entertainment" than "family entertainment" (with a few exceptions - I still remember lines at the theater in 1979 for The North Avenue Irregulars, and there were plenty of adults) until Miller starting initiating some changes in their approach as they entered the 1980s (which was needed and laudable, as enjoyable as the older films are). They seemed to be doing pretty well, but still many were unsatisfied, which is when Miller and the old guard were shoved out and the Eisner era began in 1984 (which Roy Disney was instrumental in creating, it should be pointed out). This was sealed in February 1986, when Walt Disney Productions became The Walt Disney Company. And that's rather significant, I think, because it means that the company Walt founded, Walt Disney Productions, was no longer its old self anymore. New people were in charge, with new ideas, new agendas, new sensibilities, new approaches to film, etc. It was essentially a generational change. And such changes are often accompanied by the pain of loss as well as the pleasure of revitalization.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:I think he would have toned the action scenes down in their intensity, to me it just seems a tad more violent than what Disney was making in his day back then it was more like cartoon violence.

Of course. We are no longer living in Walt's era. The film industry has changed greatly since his death (it started happening almost right after he went - the 70s were a major revolution in American film), and in order to successfully compete in the marketplace today, filmmakers have to reflect the sensibilities of the audience. Again, what is acceptable in movies today was not necessarily acceptable in Walt's day, and vice versa. Filmmaking styles and methods change, even in formulaic studio films (not saying the POTC are formulaic, however).

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:While the ride is one of the more darker rides, so is Haunted Mansion I'm guesing Disney purposely made them darker and more scary then the rest of his rides at Disneyland, that way there were somethings for adults or teenagers to enjoy instead of just rides geared more towards younger kids like the Teacup Ride, Dumbo, and the various ones based off movies like Snow White's Forest, Winnie The Pooh, Pinocchio etc.

That's pretty much obvious. "Entertainment for all ages" was Walt's goal, not just entertainment for children.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:However while the ride itself is dark, there's also non-frightening elements to it like the Pirates who found the rum and the pirates who are dunking the mayor seem more comedic than scary so it has a balance to it.

Right, just like the movies. They're not exactly cinematic horrorfests. They're adventure films with elements of fantasy, horror, romance, and comedy.

Chernabog_Rocks wrote:I wasn't purposely trying to imply Walt would micromanage the movies, but I just think he might have done it in a different way, a way more along the lines of his earlier adventure/action movies like 20,000 Leagues and Swiss Family Robinson

I agree, if Walt were in charge of the production (or at least have overseen it), most likely he would have done it a different way. If the films had been made back in the 60s, they would have come across extremely differently, mostly due to the fact that different artists, designers, writers, directors, cinematographers, actors, etc. would have been employed to make the film. Also, different, ostensibly more primitive filmmaking technologies would have been available (that means absolutely no CGI), and the films would likely look nothing at all like they do now. They also would have been much more inexpensive.

Would a 1960s-era POTC movie be interesting and entertaining? Probably. But one was never made, and due to a variety of reasons both business-related and technology-related (as well as due to the fact that many people from that time are either dead or retired), one can never truly be made.

But if it's classic pirate and seafaring films you want, there are several that can be found on DVD, including the recently released Captain Horatio Hornblower (1951), from which Disney borrowed the dialogue for the Wicked Wench's captain during the bombardment of the Spanish fort.

Pollyanna was aired on Hallmark Channel, same with the original Haley Mills Parent Trap. Disney channel could very well air those movies, but that would take time away from their precious tween shows like the "boring life of twins that live in a hotel" and "cory who lives at the white house".

I remember a few years back when they actually aired the "Heidi" movie with Jane Seymour and the girl from the Sarah, Plain and Tall movies (she played the sickly Clara).

I think they're just making excuses. I would be so happy if they could just air The Time Flyer (aka Blue Yonder) on Disney. I have not seen the whole movie and would love to make a copy of it on a DVD-R.

How many kids will never see movies like Old Yeller or Pollyanna or Swiss Family Robinson if Disney refuses to play those?

It's funny everyone only blames soccer moms for things like the state of Disney when in my experience it's the trailer trash who parks their kids in front of the TV. This has lead to a lot of things being dumbed down. Ever watch Sesame Street recently? Compare it to the pre 1990's and it's really bad. The old Sesame Street appealed to all ages. The Muppet skits were just as fun as the Muppet Show ones. Now the Muppet segments are insulting to a child's intellegence let alone an adult's.


The Vault Disney DVD's in wave 1 showed up at least 4-6 months after their release in most stores. Only Best Buy had them the day of release. Best Buy didn't have any of the others in the next two waves on the day of release while most other stores had 20,000 Leagues. I also have never found all the Treasures or the True Life Adventures at Best Buy. I always have to shop around to Target, Best Buy, and when they were open, Media Play to get a full set. This year I went to Wal*Mart (a first that they had them) and Sam's Club (Another first!)

I think WB treats their older films with the respect they deserve. Although they don't get as much advertising as recent fare I hink they get way more than any of the older Disney films do when they come to DVD.

I don't have a problem with rides being updated or changed because that's what Walt always intended. I haven't seen the film updates to the ride but in this case and the Peter Pan updates it does bug me that the supposed only reason they were updated to include new characters was because stupid people kept asking where they were. I am against the PC changes Disney made to pirates years ago and they claimed at the time it had to do with the audio being damaged yet you can hear both versions of the pooped pirate on the CD. Huh...

I've always found the Pirates of the Carribean and Haunted Mansion rides to be more funny than dark. There is silliness and humor all over them and little to no darkness.

I think that what was meant by toned down action was you wouldn't see that much "activity" in a Walt film. But I think that made Walt era violence stronger. Remember in Treasure Island when Jim Hawkings shot Mr. Hands in the forehead? That was pretty intense but we never actually see it done. We see the build up and the aftermath but never the actual act. I think that makes that scene all the more intense because we weren't shown it but most kids remember it as if they had seen the footage of Hands shot. A Walt styled Pirates of the Carribean film wouldn't be bad. It would be just as good as Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues, and Swiss Family. All are entertaining adventure films and time has not tarnished their pleasure.

True Walt wasn't the type to micromanage a director, however, he did micromanage at the storyboard level and nothing was included without his approval. He didn't even like joking about mature content in his films. He also surrounded himself with people who shared his ideals so there would be no need to micromanage a director because he would have chosen one he approved of in the first place.

While Walt didn't personally live the way he was seen publically he still kept his personal bad habits seperate from his professional work. If you take anyone from his generation their overall values didn't change with time. There are also many stories about his being offended by then curent films. On the Mary Poppings DVD it's even quoted that he hired Dick van Dyke because they both shared the view that films were turning into dirty movies. It's evidence like this that leads me to believe Walt would never have included sexual content or profanity in his films. The often quoted he felt trapped by his brand name comments I take to mean he couldn't do a Hitchcock film under the Disney banner. You know, a film like North by Northwest that doesn't really have anything offensive about it and is smartly written. I think the content of most films today would make Walt blush.

Even though Walt was unpredictable in some areas the kinds of entertainments he made were not. He pushed technology and fantasy with many of them but his complete body of work shared the same family values overall throughout his career.

I don't see the films in general between the Walt and Eisner eras as being anything like what Walt made. These films were generally poorly written and pure dumbdowned screwball comedies. Few were successful because of their poor quality and it made Disney a joke in the industry. A film like the original Star Wars should have been the types of films Disney was making at that time because it appealed to all ages and was top of the line with the special effects. I think since the early 80's Speilberg and George Lucas have forgotten how to make great films as well. I've seen little since that stretch from the late 70's through the early 80's that had the magic that the fantasy and family films had over all and these two were the poster boys for this rennisance. Since then they've lost their way and in many cases just hack stuff out.

I'm surprised there were lines for the North Avenue Irregulars. That title always makes me laugh because it sounds like a group for a constipation drug commercial.


"It was always my understanding that Jack was with Barbossa and the other pirates when they stole the Aztec gold, and then each took a coin from it. The way I understood the curse to work was that it wouldn't be lifted until each and every stolen coin was put back and then the blood of an innocent was spilled on it. "

No, Jack was left on the island when the pirates were on their way to get the Aztec gold so he was left out of the curse. He didn't even know there was a curse until they stop by his cell in Port Royal. Jack gets cursed because he pulls a coin out at the climax. They even slow motion as he puts it up his sleeve but a lot of people seemed to have missed it. What I was saying was it makes more sense for th pirates to gradually become their cursed states over time rather than having instantly becoming them in an instant, like Jack did. According to Barbossa's story it makes more sense that the curse grew worse and worse as time passed until they were the living undead. If more time went by they would become even more rotted away in their cursed state. That's all I was saying.

"No, not at all. But I don't really see where this is leading insofar as discussion of either the POTC films or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea are concerned. "

Pirates has some mature content that 20,000 Leagues does not but does that make 20,000 Leagues any less enjoyable? It's the story and characters that makes a film great so why put mature content in just for a higher rating?

"Other times it's a reflection of realism, and some writers and/or directors and/or producers want that in their films."


Are the films that don't use mature language any less real than films that do? I'm just saying you don't NEED to have it in your film because the majority of great films do not. 1939 is considered to be the greatest year ever in film and none of those films have foul language or sexual content. Just because you can show everything now doesn't mean you should.


"and in order to successfully compete in the marketplace today, filmmakers have to reflect the sensibilities of the audience.


But how much of entertainment content is REALLY what the audience wants to see and not what the filmmakers want to TELL the audience to see? I'm outright appauled by how most film makers today have to ruin their films by pushing political and moral agendas through their films to the point where they're little more that big budget propaganda when film makers for almost 100 years made films purely to entertain wih no hidden agendas.




The reason I buy DVD's is so when I do have my own kids they can grow up with these films that I grew up with since Disney no longer airs them. I'd love to see the Blue Yonder again. I won't buy the old VHS tape because it has scenes edited out. I still remember the opening title sequence with the plane and classical style film score.

UncleEd wrote:It's funny everyone only blames soccer moms for things like the state of Disney when in my experience it's the trailer trash who parks their kids in front of the TV. This has lead to a lot of things being dumbed down. Ever watch Sesame Street recently? Compare it to the pre 1990's and it's really bad. The old Sesame Street appealed to all ages. The Muppet skits were just as fun as the Muppet Show ones. Now the Muppet segments are insulting to a child's intellegence let alone an adult's.

All right, no need to get classist. I take it your Mrs. is a soccer mom? No insult was intended. I was just using the term to get across a point. No doubt there are parents of all class levels who make the mistake of parking their kids in front of the tube and then going off to do other things, but no matter who's doing it, bad parenting is bad parenting, and TDC is enabling that sort of bad parenting, I think, by pandering to it with the excuse that their financial bottom line shows that "it's just good business." I say phooey to that.

UncleEd wrote:The Vault Disney DVD's in wave 1 showed up at least 4-6 months after their release in most stores. Only Best Buy had them the day of release. Best Buy didn't have any of the others in the next two waves on the day of release while most other stores had 20,000 Leagues. I also have never found all the Treasures or the True Life Adventures at Best Buy. I always have to shop around to Target, Best Buy, and when they were open, Media Play to get a full set. This year I went to Wal*Mart (a first that they had them) and Sam's Club (Another first!)

That really sucks. I haven't necessarily found full sets at Best Buy, but I have usually been able to find the various Treasures and TLA titles there, and sometimes individual titles that are harder to find. I'd have to guess that probably the region you live in isn't as well supplied as mine, though, or their local buyers aren't that good.

UncleEd wrote:I think WB treats their older films with the respect they deserve. Although they don't get as much advertising as recent fare I hink they get way more than any of the older Disney films do when they come to DVD.

Yes, Warner Bros. is pretty much the king when it comes to giving their classics royal treatment on DVD. But it's not surprising, given that Time Warner owns TCM too.

Disney's biggest bugaboo with their classics, besides availability issues and packaging, is two-fold - the fact that they don't easily provide the date of original release, and the fact that they're severely unclear when it comes to aspect ratios. I don't know whether it's information that's been lost or omitted from the vaults, or if they're doing it intentionally, or what, but it seems that they know both the negative and intended aspect ratios of some of their films, but not others, and that's just plain odd. I don't know if it's due to bad recordkeeping at the archives, a lack of recordkeeping, or just lost info, but it's frustrating. And then on top of it, their transfers are wonderful sometimes, very iffy other times.

UncleEd wrote:I don't have a problem with rides being updated or changed because that's what Walt always intended. I haven't seen the film updates to the ride but in this case and the Peter Pan updates it does bug me that the supposed only reason they were updated to include new characters was because stupid people kept asking where they were. I am against the PC changes Disney made to pirates years ago and they claimed at the time it had to do with the audio being damaged yet you can hear both versions of the pooped pirate on the CD. Huh...

I hadn't heard those arguments regarding the changes to POTC at all. Actually, since the pooped pirate scene was changed once again to include Jack Sparrow in the barrel instead of the original girl, it actually improves it over the PC change that was made to it, so I can't really complain about that. (And as it was, I was never aware of the pooped pirate's original lines until this whole controversy came to light, so I can't really say I missed much... the pirates chasing the women, though - having them chased for food was just... inane. I never thought the original version of the chase scene was as dark and threatening as its critics claimed it to have been. To me that was just total, almost juvenile, humor.

UncleEd wrote:I've always found the Pirates of the Carribean and Haunted Mansion rides to be more funny than dark. There is silliness and humor all over them and little to no darkness.

Well, sure, in the latter half of POTC (and throughout HM), there is more of a lighthearted, humorous approach, and much of that is reflected in the music, actually. Both rides are relatively light-hearted confections, to be sure. But I don't think that the film adaptations necessarily needed to imitate that same sort of midcentury Midamerican corniness (and that's not a slam, just a description). In fact, I'd say that had they adopted such an approach, they wouldn't have been as successful, either domestically or worldwide. What works at the Disney parks in the early 21st Century isn't necessarily going to work at box offices in the 21st Century.

UncleEd wrote:I think that what was meant by toned down action was you wouldn't see that much "activity" in a Walt film. But I think that made Walt era violence stronger. Remember in Treasure Island when Jim Hawkings shot Mr. Hands in the forehead? That was pretty intense but we never actually see it done. We see the build up and the aftermath but never the actual act. I think that makes that scene all the more intense because we weren't shown it but most kids remember it as if they had seen the footage of Hands shot. A Walt styled Pirates of the Carribean film wouldn't be bad. It would be just as good as Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues, and Swiss Family. All are entertaining adventure films and time has not tarnished their pleasure.

I agree; I love classic films and I own 2 of those 3 titles on DVD myself, very proudly (as soon as I can I will get Treasure Island).

And even now, there are criticisms of the films that the action is too frenetic and that the filmmakers are trying to do too much, that it's just crammed full of sub-plots and such. I understand these criticisms, and I agree that the films do have very fast-paced action sequences and a complex storyline that's sometimes hard to follow, but I don't really have much of a problem with what's on screen, myself. To me, if anything, Disney is probably guilty of being TOO imaginative with this film series, so much so that it's like rich chocolate; for some, it's too rich. For some, if the production had been given a lower overall budget and the scripts were pared down to more basic elements, the series would be more enjoyable. I understand that, and to some degree they may be right. But to me, the films work just as they are.

UncleEd wrote:True Walt wasn't the type to micromanage a director, however, he did micromanage at the storyboard level and nothing was included without his approval. He didn't even like joking about mature content in his films. He also surrounded himself with people who shared his ideals so there would be no need to micromanage a director because he would have chosen one he approved of in the first place.

OK.

UncleEd wrote:While Walt didn't personally live the way he was seen publically he still kept his personal bad habits seperate from his professional work. If you take anyone from his generation their overall values didn't change with time. There are also many stories about his being offended by then curent films. On the Mary Poppings DVD it's even quoted that he hired Dick van Dyke because they both shared the view that films were turning into dirty movies. It's evidence like this that leads me to believe Walt would never have included sexual content or profanity in his films. The often quoted he felt trapped by his brand name comments I take to mean he couldn't do a Hitchcock film under the Disney banner. You know, a film like North by Northwest that doesn't really have anything offensive about it and is smartly written. I think the content of most films today would make Walt blush.

OK. But, more specifically, what does this have to do with the POTC films? Despite the PG-13 ratings (which are ostensibly for the intensity of some of the action violence, some horror effects, and overall somewhat more mature tone), what exactly about the films is necessarily "dirty" or "offensive"? There's really no sexual content that I can think of, and the romances are handled tastefully. I don't really think the rum jokes and scenes of drunkenness are out of line.

I dunno, I'm just not sure I know what your particular beef with these films is, content-wise.

UncleEd wrote:Even though Walt was unpredictable in some areas the kinds of entertainments he made were not. He pushed technology and fantasy with many of them but his complete body of work shared the same family values overall throughout his career.

OK. I don't really see the current Disney company departing too greatly from that when it comes to their Walt Disney-branded films. Again, I think it has a lot to do with what midcentury audiences found acceptable vs. what modern audiences find acceptable. When Disney, or anyone else, pushes the envelope of acceptability, we usually hear about it. The problem, quite honestly, has to do with trying to balance a project's appeal so that it neither overtly offends nor offends by being overly inoffensive. Just as you're not fond of entertainment being dumbed-down, a lot of people aren't fond of entertainment that is watered-down to make it more palatable to a wider audience. That's not to say that Disney necessarily SHOULD pursue a policy of making films under the Disney name strictly for mature audiences, but that certain films, by their nature, are going to have to decide how to balance their content so that they're neither offensive nor inoffensive. Some will go too far one way or the other, others will be spot-on. Notice how many were disappointed with The Haunted Mansion in 2003. That had a more comedic, light-hearted approach, and it not only did only so-so as a film, but it failed miserably at the box office. It had even less mature elements in it than Curse of the Black Pearl did, but that didn't help it one bit. It was essentially written off as targeting 11 year olds. Now, don't get me wrong; I saw it and I thought it was pretty decent, and even genuinely scary in one scene. But it overindulged on the comedy angle, at the expense of the park attraction's darker, more serious tone. Balancing lightness and darkness in the tone of a film is a real trick, and it appears that where Rob Minkoff failed, Gore Verbinski succeeded.

UncleEd wrote:I don't see the films in general between the Walt and Eisner eras as being anything like what Walt made. These films were generally poorly written and pure dumbdowned screwball comedies. Few were successful because of their poor quality and it made Disney a joke in the industry.

Well, no doubt in some respects, but not all of the films in that period were screwball comedies. Some of them worked well no matter what their genre.

UncleEd wrote:I think since the early 80's Speilberg and George Lucas have forgotten how to make great films as well. I've seen little since that stretch from the late 70's through the early 80's that had the magic that the fantasy and family films had over all and these two were the poster boys for this rennisance. Since then they've lost their way and in many cases just hack stuff out.

In the case of Lucas, you may have something, but I really have to disagree with you on this in the case of Spielberg. Spielberg, to be sure, is no longer the same man as he was in the 70s and early 80s, and yes, that is very much reflected in his filmmaking, which in most cases is no longer as "Spielbergian" as his earliest films were, but that's largely because he's become a father, which shifted his perspectives on quite a number of things. Also, his filmmaking has matured and actually improved in many respects, and the cinematographers he uses (as well as the photographic techniques) are generally darker. I mean, honestly, how can you so easily dismiss his latter work, when it includes The Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Jurassic Park (which was almost a throwback for him, stylistically), Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, Catch Me If You Can, and Munich? His filmmaking matured and for the most part no longer has that "childlike wonder" aspect that it once had when he was this wunderkind director in his 20s and early 30s, but referring to such Oscar-winning films as "hack work" is absurd.

UncleEd wrote:I'm surprised there were lines for the North Avenue Irregulars. That title always makes me laugh because it sounds like a group for a constipation drug commercial.

Cute.

UncleEd wrote:

Papibear wrote:It was always my understanding that Jack was with Barbossa and the other pirates when they stole the Aztec gold, and then each took a coin from it. The way I understood the curse to work was that it wouldn't be lifted until each and every stolen coin was put back and then the blood of an innocent was spilled on it.

No, Jack was left on the island when the pirates were on their way to get the Aztec gold so he was left out of the curse. He didn't even know there was a curse until they stop by his cell in Port Royal. Jack gets cursed because he pulls a coin out at the climax. They even slow motion as he puts it up his sleeve but a lot of people seemed to have missed it. What I was saying was it makes more sense for th pirates to gradually become their cursed states over time rather than having instantly becoming them in an instant, like Jack did. According to Barbossa's story it makes more sense that the curse grew worse and worse as time passed until they were the living undead. If more time went by they would become even more rotted away in their cursed state. That's all I was saying.

Oh, ok.

UncleEd wrote:

Papibear wrote:No, not at all. But I don't really see where this is leading insofar as discussion of either the POTC films or 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea are concerned.

Pirates has some mature content that 20,000 Leagues does not but does that make 20,000 Leagues any less enjoyable? It's the story and characters that makes a film great so why put mature content in just for a higher rating?

No, it doesn't make 20,000 Leagues less enjoyable (to me at least; it might to others). I don't believe that mature content was inserted into the POTC films simply in order to get a higher rating. I think that any content that could be considered "mature" was there most likely because it was true to the story.

UncleEd wrote:

Papibear wrote:Other times it's a reflection of realism, and some writers and/or directors and/or producers want that in their films.

Are the films that don't use mature language any less real than films that do? I'm just saying you don't NEED to have it in your film because the majority of great films do not. 1939 is considered to be the greatest year ever in film and none of those films have foul language or sexual content. Just because you can show everything now doesn't mean you should.

No, films that don't use mature language aren't necessarily any "less real" than films that do, but that all depends on what those films are portraying. For some kinds of films, it's fine if there's no mature language. For other films, it makes absolutely no sense for there to be no mature language at all, at least if realism or the appearance of realism is an intended goal of the filmmaker.

You mention 1939, but in 1939, the Hays Code was also in effect, which strictly regulated the content of what could be shown in Hollywood films. Don't think that the existence of the code didn't affect what Disney could do in films and what they couldn't. Remember that even Clark Gable's "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" line caused a big stir. While the existence of the code did occasionally provide an opportunity for writers and directors to be particularly creative as a way of getting around it, the code started falling out of favor even during Walt's time, and by the time he was gone, the MPAA's rating system was just coming into being in order to replace it. There is absolutely no way that the Hays Code would be accepted today. The 1960s & 1970s made sure of that.

UncleEd wrote:

Papibear wrote:and in order to successfully compete in the marketplace today, filmmakers have to reflect the sensibilities of the audience.

But how much of entertainment content is REALLY what the audience wants to see and not what the filmmakers want to TELL the audience to see? I'm outright appauled by how most film makers today have to ruin their films by pushing political and moral agendas through their films to the point where they're little more that big budget propaganda when film makers for almost 100 years made films purely to entertain wih no hidden agendas.

Oh for pete's sake. That's just hogwash. Not every film made before 1968 was lighthearted, breezy popcorn entertainment. Films like Citizen Kane, Meet John Doe, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (from 1939, no less, I'm surprised at you), Crossfire, Gentleman's Agreement, State of the Union, No Way Out (Sidney Poitier's debut film), The Caine Mutiny, The Manchurian Candidate, Advise and Consent, Sunrise at Campobello, The Last Hurrah, Fail Safe, the original All the King's Men, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, On the Waterfront, not to mention several Biblical epics - all of these films, and many others, in some way, shape, or form "pushed" political and/or moral "agendas" in their storytelling. And there's nothing at all wrong with films that have political, social, or moral content in their films, or that approach their subjects in a mature and realistic fashion. Just as there is nothing wrong with films geared for children as well as all ages, there is nothing wrong with films that are geared strictly for adults.

Look, if you personally prefer lighthearted entertainment to more serious, mature films, that's fine, but advocating that all films should be devoid of political or moral content, or mature content, simply because you personally don't find such films to be particularly enjoyable is, IMHO, a bit of a ludicrous position to take.

UncleEd wrote:The reason I buy DVD's is so when I do have my own kids they can grow up with these films that I grew up with since Disney no longer airs them.

And that's very admirable and intelligent. Disney made a lot of great films back in the day and they deserve to be seen again and again by present and future generations. What really annoys me, though, is that if they won't show their classic films on their own cable channel, and if they issue them on DVD only sparingly, why not give them a theatrical re-release every few years as well, just to make a few quick extra bucks at the box office? Disney did that ALL. THE. TIME. when I was a kid, and I ate it right up. I saw Swiss Family Robinson (which was my Star Wars before there was a Star Wars), Pinocchio, Dumbo, The Sword in the Stone, Cinderella, Mary Poppins, The Absent-Minded Professor, Song of the South, Lt. Robin Crusoe, USN, Alice in Wonderland, Old Yeller (I still remember just loving that film), Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Peter Pan, Blackbeard's Ghost, Follow Me, Boys!, Fantasia, Bambi, Darby O'Gill and the Little People, The Jungle Book, and Sleeping Beauty, all theatrically, all during 70s re-releases. And this was in addition to all the then-current Disney live-action and animation movies being released.

I wasn't offended by thr Soccer Mom term. I'm just saying where IU live Soccer Moms aren't into Disney but the trailer trash are into anything to babysit their kids. The soccer moms are work a holics. I've also found that in other places in the country trailer parks really mean mobile home parks. In my town the trailer parks are really trashy and the lowest of low morally and financially live there. I'm not bashing them for it, just stating the fact. When Atlantis came out our local drive in theater was packed with trailer park trash and their kids and I remember thinking "These people don't care about the art of an animated film. To them it's just a cartoon babysitter." When Lilo and Stitch played they got drunk and rowdy and threw beer bottles at the screen. And, no. I don't live in a trailer park. I only observed this because I worked at the drive in for a few summers.

My Best Buy is located between Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Columbus. You'd think we would get decent distribution since all of these cities are within 100 miles or so from here.

See, Ted Turner gets it when it comes to restoring old movies. He makes upper class uppity types mad because he says things like "People think I restore movies for the sake of restoring them. I don't care about restoring the movie. I only care about making more money and if I restore a film it's going to make me even more money over the years." Disney doesn't get this simple fact I gues.

I'd say disney and their aspect ratio issues are due to not caring more than anything. As has been stated many times over the years Disney has the most authoritative records of any film company. Remember, most of the companies burned or destroyed their records in the 1970's. Disney was stil storing them on their propertty well into the mid 80's.


I don't mind adding Jack to the pooped pirate scene. But I was a bit peeved when the dialogue was changed to be PC. I also wonder if he really is talking about raping that girl or too much has been read into it. It's hard to believe that Walt would have a pirate talking openly about raping a woman on a ride and that he'd be saying it for 30 years. That's why I doubt that this was the intention behind what his colorful pirate lingo was meant to portray.

I thought the pirates chasing women and having women chase them was funny. That was the intention of that scene. And I'd say that the Didney pirates were only looking to kiss and squeeze some women. I doubt the Disney versions of pirates would be doing anything more than that.

The part of the Pirates ride has never felt dark to me because I always felt like we were going through what remained of the past and later we go in a time warp to see what it was "really" like in their hey day. I haven't been on the new version though.

The Pirate films reference the rides just right. The Haunted Mansion was corny. They needed to make characters out of the ghosts and not just have them cameo. I found the whole movie to be really lame. It should have been like Casper or A Night at the Museum. Those films had dark elements but were fun. The script of Haunted Mansion itself was lousy and in that case the whole ghost after the married woman thing turned a lot of people I've read online and talked to off.

Treasure Island was another DVD I had to buy online by the way.

"OK. But, more specifically, what does this have to do with the POTC films? Despite the PG-13 ratings (which are ostensibly for the intensity of some of the action violence, some horror effects, and overall somewhat more mature tone), what exactly about the films is necessarily "dirty" or "offensive"? There's really no sexual content that I can think of, and the romances are handled tastefully. I don't really think the rum jokes and scenes of drunkenness are out of line."


No, the rum jokes were fine. It's been a while since I've seen DMC but I thought that the Jack Elizabeth thing was a bit untasteful at times. I haven't seen the new film yet. I get uncomfortable watching a film with family if there are any swear words at all. I know a lot of people aren't like that but I grew up on the older films so I'm not desensitized to it.

"Just as you're not fond of entertainment being dumbed-down, a lot of people aren't fond of entertainment that is watered-down to make it more palatable to a wider audience."

I don't see a lack of the things I mentioned being watered down though because plenty of older films that are highly acclaimed didn't contain any of these things. Why do we need them today?


"Well, no doubt in some respects, but not all of the films in that period were screwball comedies. Some of them worked well no matter what their genre."

And I did say that some did. Most did not though. More than half of the live action films Walt personally made are without question considered to be successful or classics. Of how many from the between time till Eisner can the same be said? Maybe a dozen if that?

I say that 1993 was the peak of Speilberg's career. It's all been down hill from there. He has mostly done historical films or thrillers since then and none of them have been as popular with audiences or crittics as his earlier work. I really believe that what people want from Speilberg are films like Jurassic Park and Indianna Jones, and ET. In the 1980's the name Steven Speilberg Presents was like Walt Disney Presents in the 1950's and 60's. When you saw a Speilberg label on a film you knew you'd get to escape into a world of fantasy. He hasn't maintained this expectation. He can still make his political films but throwing the audience a popcorn flick every now and then wouldn't hurt.

"For some kinds of films, it's fine if there's no mature language."

But my point is those films are no longer made. Even a film I've praised several times, Night at the Museum, contains some mature language. Like OWen Wilson saying "I don't like to be manhandled because it makes me feel small and helpless" and you have a swear every now and then. I don't see how these things help the story or make it any more entertaining. All it did was secure a higher rating. I think film makers believe they need a higher rating to be taken seriously as a film.

"For other films, it makes absolutely no sense for there to be no mature language at all, at least if realism or the appearance of realism is an intended goal of the filmmaker."

But it worked for decades and it was just as real for those audiences.

"You mention 1939, but in 1939, the Hays Code was also in effect, which strictly regulated the content of what could be shown in Hollywood films."

I know this but 1939 is still often praised as the best year for movies anyway even though the Hayes Code was in effect. Al.though I'm against censorship in some ways I think the Hayes Office wasn't always a bad thing because it forced film makers to make intellegent films as they got around the code. I don't think the ratio of great films made today is anywhere as high as pre 1970's. I think part of this is also due to the Star Wars generation where louder and more special effects are what became seen as why a movie does business. Ironically studios in the old days were making throw away entertainment and their films are some of the brighest evergreens ever made. The films of today are shiny and new and will never disappear but not nearlky as many are as appealing.

"Films like Citizen Kane, Meet John Doe, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (from 1939, no less, I'm surprised at you), Crossfire, Gentleman's Agreement, State of the Union, No Way Out (Sidney Poitier's debut film), The Caine Mutiny, The Manchurian Candidate, Advise and Consent, Sunrise at Campobello, The Last Hurrah, Fail Safe, the original All the King's Men, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, On the Waterfront"

But my point is that these films are great and don't contain swear words or sex.

"And there's nothing at all wrong with films that have political, social, or moral content in their films, or that approach their subjects in a mature and realistic fashion....ook, if you personally prefer lighthearted entertainment to more serious, mature films, that's fine, but advocating that all films should be devoid of political or moral content, or mature content, simply because you personally don't find such films to be particularly enjoyable is, IMHO, a bit of a ludicrous position to take. "

What I object to is how it is handled today. In the old days it was always subtle. Today it's in your face, blatant, and all about getting attention. Most of these themes today play on emotional cases where as in the past it was always a psycological one. Most films made before 1970-ish I can come into at the middle and be swept into the story. Few films after that do it for me. I was not saying I only like light hearted films. I like smartly written films and I just don't see that happening as much these days.

"why not give them a theatrical re-release every few years as well, just to make a few quick extra bucks at the box office?"


The reason why Disney won't do this with their live action films is because in the past the film prints were stored away and redistributed for several rereleases. There were always some replacements but to start this program up again they would have to start from scratch. Film prints are expensive. Just one print is supposed to cost a minimum of 10,000.00. They spend millions to make enough prints for each theater to run. I strongly doubt that Disney would see a profit in doing this when they don't even see a profit in airing the films on TV or distributing them widely on DVD. DVD has also killed the reissue market because for the first time the public can now own prints just as good as those we saw in the theaters.

I forgot to mention this. Another Pirates story thing that bugs me is this. In the first film when Barbossa tells Elizabeth she's in a ghost story I think it would have been more effective if he had stepped into the moonlight on the line "You're in one" But no, he's jabbering on and on and has already emerged by that point. It would have been more mysterious then is all I'm saying.