Disney: Still sucks

[Ditto Much]

Originally posted by Klubmasta Will
disney, like most movie producers, make good movies and bad movies. disney has made some of the greatest films of all time as well as some of the worst.

for all you complainers, do you know of ANY other major american company that has made young white american children beg their parents for native dolls (pocahontas), chinese dolls (mulan), arabian dolls (aladdin), et al.?

do you give disney any credit for helping some americans respect other cultures?

No it reduces the argument to do that.

Not only that, I give Disney some credit for actualy depicting different races and cultures.

 

[Boss Hog]

Originally posted by gollum

This just seems to me to be another case of, lets defame someone (disney) for the sake of popularity. It seems that if you complain loud enough about something or someone everyone has heard of, you'll be remembered as well.

Fucking protesters...

you are retarded.

Here's a mouth guard and helmet.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

I think it's a bit unfair, considering most Hollywood films in general embellish and take liberties with lots of true stories. So Disney is in line with everyone else, why should they be held to a higher standard.

Telling a story word for word makes for shitty drama, unfortunately, but that's the way it works.

 

[Boss Hog]

you guys seem to be missing the point of the original article.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

What that the guy who's the centre of the story is quite likely a liar and that none of it probably happened? Again, I don't really see it as being that shocking. Let the believers think that it's true and let them think that the Swamp Fox from The Patriot looked like Mel Gibson, that the claims of John Kael in The Mothman Prophecies are true (and SERIOUSLY toned down from the outrageous claims in the book), and that the Americans were actually humane to the end in Mogadishu in Blackhawk Down.

People who get their education from films alone are fucking idiots anyways.

And now we will hear a reading from Mr. Delaghetto:

TICK TOCK says the clock...

 

[Klubmasta Will]

Originally posted by Boss Hog
you guys seem to be missing the point of the original article.

my post was in response to the general disney-bashing.

i cannot comment on the original article because i have not seen the movie in question so i do not know how it portrays americans or arabs or anyone else.

as for the "true story" bit, the vast majority probably does not care, or even know, that the movie is "based on a true story".

 

[Boss Hog]

Okay let me come out and say it.

This is looking more and more like a Department of Propaganda rather than a film studio. Not as extreme maybe, but still with a slow, insidious contextual effect on the society its pervading.

Sure only idiots learn from film, but there's a lot of idiots out there. Do you blame the idiots or the information they're fed?

 

[Muad'ib]

Originally posted by el presidente Highsteppa
Telling a story word for word makes for shitty drama, unfortunately, but that's the way it works.

Not always. There are many true stories that would make really compelling drama. Many writers take liberties because it is easier to think of what enhances a story's translation to film instead of doing research.

Have you seen "Touching The Void" yet el pres? It is great drama, but based entirely on fact. It makes for great storytelling because it is so incredible.

 

[starr]

Originally posted by Ditto Much
Not only that, I give Disney some credit for actualy depicting different races and cultures.

what wonderfully low expectations you have

 

[Zorro]

Originally posted by scruffy1
Master and Commander

????

Explain this one for me please? it has me confused has to why you might think some how that it qualifys under this : revisionist history films also made by Disney

 

[Booty Bits]

Originally posted by windowlicker
for some reason noone seemed to give a shit that the movies 'Shine' and 'Amadeus' were both pretty much crocks

tell me more about Shine. i admit i totally love that movie. i really know nothing more about it other than what i saw on the screen.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Boss Hog
Okay let me come out and say it.

This is looking more and more like a Department of Propaganda rather than a film studio. Not as extreme maybe, but still with a slow, insidious contextual effect on the society its pervading.

But again, that's Hollywood for you - often promoting a popular agenda. But you do get it going both ways; Wag the Dog was described by many on the right side of the political spectrum as liberal garbage, while when the Lewinsky scandal broke, struck the left as being no longer funny. It's being somewhat disliked again by the right because of the whole Enron debacle and the war in Iraq, which many see as a smokescreen in order to perform damage control in the meantime.

Agendas in media have been around forever and just as offensive. Fatal Attraction has been seen as one of the most sexist messages out there - woman with a career is psychotic timebomb waiting to happen, while the stay at home mom has the family's best interests in mind. It's been decried by many feminist organizations as being one of the most sexist films out there in popular culture, and as having a far right anti-woman message that's thinly vieled as a thriller.

Blackhawk Down went from a book that analyzed how a routine military mission with good intentions at its heart, got perverted and became a bloody nose in american aid in UN efforts and a rather unflattering view of some of the people that were involved in the stay in Mogadishu. The movie became essentially became a two hour fire fight that celebrated American heroism. While there were some mentions of heroism and some pretty astonishing acts of bravery in the book, the film abandonned a lot of the grittier elements of racism that prevailed on the side of the Americans, their recklessness at the end of the mission where they stopped checking their targets and started to shoot at anything that moved, and nearly completely abandonned the Somali point of view towards the UN and American involvement in the whole conflict. The book wasn't a very flattering look at the Americans, and was criticized heavily by some in the military, yet the movie was endorsed by much of the U.S. Army and provided a very generous amount of co-operation when they were approached with the movie.

It dates back an insanely long time, from the red scare undertones pulsing throughout both remakes of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Living Dead and others to the similar American imperialism is right/ pro-Vietnam war message that's in your face in John Wayne's The Green Berets. Like I said, we've had this a long time, and we're always going to have it with us. What's different between then and now, besides the level of sophistication in storytelling and obfuscating the real details of the story? Not much.

Besides, nobody bitched at Fargo for saying it was based on a true story and the Cohen Brothers admitting to it later being a hoax, instead they're hailed as geniuses.

Sure only idiots learn from film, but there's a lot of idiots out there. Do you blame the idiots or the information they're fed?

I blame both, but I still lean towards the idiot first. Ignorance is no excuse for accepting without question what you're seeing on screen, but I think it's up to us to be able to call bullshit on what we're watching. But like I said, it's fiction first and foremost, even if it is a documentary. People need to be a lot more media savvy when it comes to what they're watching, since there's almost always a message whether they realize it or not underneath it all. You can choose to watch it passively or you can choose to be conscious enought to be able to discect what it is your favorite movie is trying to say.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Muad'ib
Not always. There are many true stories that would make really compelling drama. Many writers take liberties because it is easier to think of what enhances a story's translation to film instead of doing research.

While you and I agree with this, it remains to be seen if John Q public would feel the same way. Remember that screenwriters are told by studios that something major must happen every ten pages or so (that beening the average attention span on screen before a filmgoer's attention begins to waine). And also remember that the studios are concerned about the bottom dollar first and foremost - getting their money back. They're going to intervene and change it and package it as much as possible for maximum appeal to their target market.

But a lot of those liberties also have to do with making the characters a great deal more likeable and empathetic with the audience. Nash in A Beautiful Mind is not really all that nice of a guy, having abandonned a wife and kid and having said some pretty unbelievable shit (all of which was avoided like the plague in the name of a noble depiction). The character that Brad Pitt portrayed in Seven Years In Tibet was a supporter of the Nazi party (and announced it right before the film oppened) and apparently did some pretty horrid things while in Tibet (none of which have been substantiated - but the guy was a crazy coot by the time the movie came out).

I mean dramatic liscense can mean a ton of things; we didn't like the character, so we changed him up and gave him a bit of a makeover; the story happens over the course of x amount of years, with a lot of nothing happening, so we tightened up the timeline a bit, and condensed the time that some major events occured; the story has some pretty disagreeable points with our current state of government, so we had to abadon certain less agreeable aspects of the story/book/whatever or any other excuse that they can think of. Sometimes its as simple as someone in charge not liking a particular aspect and wants it their way, plain and simple.

Have you seen "Touching The Void" yet el pres? It is great drama, but based entirely on fact. It makes for great storytelling because it is so incredible.

Not yet. I've been a bit busy with some other films I'm trying to get on the go, and this summer's blockbusters are starting earlier than ever this year, so I have to get working on getting the passes that I need in order to review for this year's issues.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Zorro
????

Explain this one for me please? it has me confused has to why you might think some how that it qualifys under this : revisionist history films also made by Disney

They fought the Americans, not the French from what I'm told.

 

[Zorro]

Originally posted by el presidente Highsteppa
They fought the Americans, not the French from what I'm told.

Okay. I was just wondering because the STORIES the movie is based on ARE fictional.

Considering how popular the books were for little British & American boys I would have thought the french made more sense. I didn't read the books, too bad. However the movie is incredible in my opinon and falls into on of those to bad it was the same year has LOTR phrases.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Zorro
Okay. I was just wondering because the STORIES the movie is based on ARE fictional.

But the characters and some of the events are real are they not? I was under that impression (at least from the press kits I saw, but I really place a bit of scrutiny on them as well). I understood those books to be part of a fantastic realism (real people and some real events placed in the background of a fictional story).

 

[Zorro]

Perhaps real people were used as reference to help spark the imagination of people. But I am sure the stories are very much indeed fictional. And there for why my curiosty as to why Disney might have gone and revisonized it theory.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Zorro
And there for why my curiosty as to why Disney might have gone and revisonized it theory.

Cause Disney realizes that Americans (whole make up a lion's share of the world's box office) don't like to see any Americans getting slaughtered onscreen (esp. after Sept 11th), unless it's in the context of a noble, brave loss (there's a particular dislike of the idea of Americans dying at the hands of British during a time period close to the American Revolution). With the current distaste towards the french, they made for a decent enough villian for Master and Commander.

 

[Zorro]

Originally posted by el presidente Highsteppa
Cause Disney realizes that Americans (whole make up a lion's share of the world's box office) don't like to see any Americans getting slaughtered onscreen (esp. after Sept 11th), unless it's in the context of a noble, brave loss (there's a particular dislike of the idea of Americans dying at the hands of British during a time period close to the American Revolution). With the current distaste towards the french, they made for a decent enough villian for Master and Commander.

Fair enough.
It is though my opinon that ANY movie studio would have done the same regarding this based on your statment, which by the way makes total sense to me.

 

[Boss Hog]

I hope you get paid a reasonable buck for being such a film geek.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Zorro
Fair enough.
It is though my opinon that ANY movie studio would have done the same regarding this based on your statment, which by the way makes total sense to me.

Same here. They're just trying to read the public and the state of mind it's currently in. The super patriotic vibe is starting to die down a bit, and now you have films like the remake of The Manchurian Candidate and Michael Moore's Farenheight 911 being able to be made again, since the speculation that the war in Iraq could have been more a vendetta than a search for WMD. I can't blame for studios wanting to play things safe - they're a business like everyone else and want to give their consumers what they are demanding.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Boss Hog
I hope you get paid a reasonable buck for being such a film geek.

lol

 

[Muad'ib]

I see what you are saying el pres. I was going to add, "not that Touching the Void will be a blockbuster or anything." Studios make movies to make money, and they go with what sells. Or, they go with what they can sell.

The great true stories never get the financial backing necessary for special effects and production costs, which is a shame. The Ernest Shackelton 'Endurance' story is amazing, but A&E produced a low-budget version and it didn't do it justice. I haven't seen "Touching the Void" yet either, but I loved the book and always hoped it would be made into a film. It shows the harsh truths about climbing and survival. If you thought the hiker in Colorado who cut off his arm was tough, Joe Simpson took it to a whole new level of endurance and sheer stregth of will.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Originally posted by Muad'ib
I see what you are saying el pres. I was going to add, "not that Touching the Void will be a blockbuster or anything." Studios make movies to make money, and they go with what sells. Or, they go with what they can sell.

The great true stories never get the financial backing necessary for special effects and production costs, which is a shame. The Ernest Shackelton 'Endurance' story is amazing, but A&E produced a low-budget version and it didn't do it justice. I haven't seen "Touching the Void" yet either, but I loved the book and always hoped it would be made into a film. It shows the harsh truths about climbing and survival. If you thought the hiker in Colorado who cut off his arm was tough, Joe Simpson took it to a whole new level of endurance and sheer stregth of will.

It's definitely a film I want to see, but I'm starting to fall into a very shitty habit - expect more from video (which I'm starting to consider a thinking medium) and less from the big screen, just because my hopes are usually dashed when I get the hype from films that are just opening. Video tends to be able to cut past all of it, and usually has a bit more balanced look at how good the movie really was.

I'd definitely rush out to see Touching the Void though if they ever showed it on IMAX.

 

[el presidente Highsteppa]

Boss Hog, if you think this is bad, wait until Mark Bowden's other book, Killing Pablo, has finished filming. Bowden pissed a lot of people off with Blackhawk Down, but got a lot more in line with the CIA's telling of the U.S. involvement in taking down Pablo Escobar. I definitely got the impression from reading it that the CIA, the Delta Force, DEA, NSA and other branches of the U.S. law got involved in dictating how that book was written. Gives a lot more flattering light to the drug war against cocaine during Escobar's reign, and has had a lot of protest from Columbian government officials who were interviewed by Bowden, who they claim distorted a lot of the facts.