I salute you, sir, and fully support your message.
I agree whole heartedly, I have been saying the same things for years.
My big pet peve is the snow white story and how after being placed on the throne queen white then sent for her step-mother and made it seem she was to be a honored guest.
After a wonderful meal snow white revealed herself and ordered her step mother clapped in iorn shoes and then ordered to dance on a bed of hot coals until death.
Thats the original brothers grimm version I read, it "slightly" differs from disney, don'tcha think.
So... you suggest that Disney should be making films that would give children night terrors and countless visits to the shrink? Yeah, I'm thinking that would be a great business move.
As much as I love the original fairy tales of the brother's Grimm, One Thousand and One Nights and various mythologies of the world, they would not make great 'kid films' as written.
Yeah, I'm all for criticizing Disney, but not on the score of "age appropriateness."
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It's true. Boo hoo hoo. Anybody who wants to read the OG fairy tales can do so any time they like. Meanwhile, Disney is running a business and want to make money.
Compare the success of the kiddified version of Snow White versus the creepified version with Sigourney Weaver that came out about 10 years ago. You can argue that Disney created that market expectation, or maybe it's just that most of the moviegoing public prefers sweet to sour and romance to horror. If a company is in the business of making money, it's gonna make more on evergreen "family films" than on (sadly for horror fans) a niche market of hardcore Grimm purists.
Having read the book, I was absolutely horrified when I heard Disney was making "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." WTF, guys.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Having read the book, I was absolutely horrified when I heard Disney was making "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." WTF, guys.
And yet, if you watch the movie, it's a great story.
Is it identical to the original novel? Nope.
Is it great on its own? Yep.
It's okay, Treppa. If anything, not only did Disney's entertain little kids, but it probably meant more of them read the original when they grew up than would have happened otherwise.
Jeremy: I take it as a sign of richness and success when there are multiple tellings of the same story. Except, of course, when it's just a crappy Hollywood retread.
|
It's okay, Treppa. If anything, not only did Disney's entertain little kids, but it probably meant more of them read the original when they grew up than would have happened otherwise.
Jeremy: I take it as a sign of richness and success when there are multiple tellings of the same story. Except, of course, when it's just a crappy Hollywood retread.
Hey I liked the sigorney weaver version.
|
|
How about original stories instead of classics, kind of like Toy Story.And then what about movies from the works of Tolkien, Lovecraft, Phillip K Dick, Clancy, Ludlum, etc.?
PKD had a classic made off of one of his books, minus all of the drug use and anti drug rhetoric. But who needs that we all know the ones we like are not habit forming.
Wait a minute wrong thread :/
|
|
I think you are thinking of the movie Child's Play.How about original stories instead of classics, kind of like Toy Story.You do not want to know the original ending of toy story. They get tired of the little boys s%^& tie him and his sister up and.... best to leave off right there.
Based off the same story 8-0
|
How about original stories instead of classics, kind of like Toy Story.And then what about movies from the works of Tolkien, Lovecraft, Phillip K Dick, Clancy, Ludlum, etc.? Do those not meet some creative standard either?
Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.
|
|
PKD had a classic made off of one of his books, minus all of the drug use and anti drug rhetoric. But who needs that we all know the ones we like are not habit forming.
Wait a minute wrong thread :/
Do I want to know which thread you are referring to...?
No but that is just the drugs I am on talking.
|
|
Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.How about original stories instead of classics, kind of like Toy Story.And then what about movies from the works of Tolkien, Lovecraft, Phillip K Dick, Clancy, Ludlum, etc.? Do those not meet some creative standard either?
Have you seen a picture of my Hawaiian island Ct'hulhu on vacation?? I need to post one. He is soooooo disney cute
And yet, if you watch the movie, it's a great story.Is it identical to the original novel? Nope.
Is it great on its own? Yep.
I'd disagree. It still gives the message that you have to be the handsome prince to get the girl. Oh sure, if you're heroic people will admire you. Still, you look like ten miles of bad road, so you're going to have to get used to a celibacy as well as celebrity.
Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.How about original stories instead of classics, kind of like Toy Story.And then what about movies from the works of Tolkien, Lovecraft, Phillip K Dick, Clancy, Ludlum, etc.? Do those not meet some creative standard either?
A satirical one would be funny, but straight Disney would never work for Lovecraft. And vice versa.
Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.
|
A satirical one would be funny, but straight Disney would never work for Lovecraft. And vice versa.Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.How about original stories instead of classics, kind of like Toy Story.And then what about movies from the works of Tolkien, Lovecraft, Phillip K Dick, Clancy, Ludlum, etc.? Do those not meet some creative standard either?
My point is: why is it okay for other literature to be made into movies (and changed story-wise) but somehow Disney is at fault for what they do?
|
|
Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.Hope Steve Jackson has fire insurance
:(
|
|
A satirical one would be funny, but straight Disney would never work for Lovecraft. And vice versa.Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.How about original stories instead of classics, kind of like Toy Story.And then what about movies from the works of Tolkien, Lovecraft, Phillip K Dick, Clancy, Ludlum, etc.? Do those not meet some creative standard either?My point is: why is it okay for other literature to be made into movies (and changed story-wise) but somehow Disney is at fault for what they do?
No movie is completely true to the source material. Some mistakes however stick out like sore thumbs. I do not mind Disney movies. Nor do I dislike all those old black and white movies that did the exact same thing. I mean did people in the past really break out in song everywhere? Could they all sing and dance like that?
Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.Hope Steve Jackson has fire insurance
And don't forget SuperGenius Games.
My point is: why is it okay for other literature to be made into movies (and changed story-wise) but somehow Disney is at fault for what they do?
I think the overall point of the article is that Disney has a habit of taking literature that is the complete opposite of their kid-friendly and sugary-sweet marketing image and twisting it to fit their image. Not that these tales shouldn't be made into movies, but that Disney movies are a bad fit.
And don't forget SuperGenius Games.Please no lovecraft for kids, I would literally burn disney world down if I saw a friendly cthulhu there.Hope Steve Jackson has fire insurance
:^D
That's actually a pretty awesome book.
I think the overall point of the article is that Disney has a habit of taking literature that is the complete opposite of their kid-friendly and sugary-sweet marketing image and twisting it to fit their image. Not that these tales shouldn't be made into movies, but that Disney movies are a bad fit.My point is: why is it okay for other literature to be made into movies (and changed story-wise) but somehow Disney is at fault for what they do?
Sure, but it's Disney. So, people know what to expect. And to play devil's advocate, live action 'true to source' versions of these same stories never do all that well. I mean really, can you name one that has?
I mean did people in the past really break out in song everywhere? Could they all sing and dance like that?
I'm singing in the rain
Just singin' in the rain
What a glorious feeling
I'm happy again
I'm laughing at clouds
So dark up above
The sun's in my heart
And I'm ready for love
Let the stormy clouds chase
Everyone from the place
Come on with the rain
I've a smile on my face
I walk down the lane
With a happy refrain
Just singin', singin' in the rain
Dancing in the rain
I'm happy again
I'm singin' and dancing in the rain
I'm dancing and singin' in the rain
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I'd disagree. It still gives the message that you have to be the handsome prince to get the girl. Oh sure, if you're heroic people will admire you. Still, you look like ten miles of bad road, so you're going to have to get used to a celibacy as well as celebrity.
And yet, if you watch the movie, it's a great story.Is it identical to the original novel? Nope.
Is it great on its own? Yep.
Eh, that's one message, and not entirely counter-factual, as much as we might wish otherwise; looks do play a substantial role in your chances of success in the dating world. (Not so much with your chances of building a happy and loving relationship once you get into a relationship, but the road to getting there can be harder if you've got to overcome some obstacles in the appearance department.)
In any case, that's just one of many subplots in a movie that is dramatic, funny, affecting, with lovely animation and a fantastic soundtrack, so even if I 100% grant you being absolutely right that the "pretty boy gets the pretty girl" subplot SUCKS, there is still an awful lot to like about the movie.
Sure, but it's Disney. So, people know what to expect. And to play devil's advocate, live action 'true to source' versions of these same stories never do all that well. I mean really, can you name one that has?I think the overall point of the article is that Disney has a habit of taking literature that is the complete opposite of their kid-friendly and sugary-sweet marketing image and twisting it to fit their image. Not that these tales shouldn't be made into movies, but that Disney movies are a bad fit.My point is: why is it okay for other literature to be made into movies (and changed story-wise) but somehow Disney is at fault for what they do?
I don't think any film version can be considered exactly 'true to source.' When you change the medium you have to change your style. However, stories like The Hunchback of Notre Dame have been making appearances in film and on the stage for decades. Considering a good many of them are well before my time, I can't speak to their financial "success." However, I'd argue that artistic success can't be measured in dollar signs.
I shudder to think what Disney would do with Les Miserables.
I mean did people in the past really break out in song everywhere? Could they all sing and dance like that?
I'm singing in the rain
Just singin' in the rain
What a glorious feeling
I'm happy again
I'm laughing at clouds
So dark up above
The sun's in my heart
And I'm ready for love
Let the stormy clouds chase
Everyone from the place
Come on with the rain
I've a smile on my face
I walk down the lane
With a happy refrain
Just singin', singin' in the rain
Dancing in the rain
I'm happy again
I'm singin' and dancing in the rain
I'm dancing and singin' in the rain
|
|
I'd disagree. It still gives the message that you have to be the handsome prince to get the girl. Oh sure, if you're heroic people will admire you. Still, you look like ten miles of bad road, so you're going to have to get used to a celibacy as well as celebrity.
And yet, if you watch the movie, it's a great story.Is it identical to the original novel? Nope.
Is it great on its own? Yep.
Sounds like someone has issues...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I don't think any film version can be considered exactly 'true to source.' When you change the medium you have to change your style. However, stories like The Hunchback of Notre Dame have been making appearances in film and on the stage for decades. Considering a good many of them are well before my time, I can't speak to their financial "success." However, I'd argue that artistic success can't be measured in dollar signs.Sure, but it's Disney. So, people know what to expect. And to play devil's advocate, live action 'true to source' versions of these same stories never do all that well. I mean really, can you name one that has?I think the overall point of the article is that Disney has a habit of taking literature that is the complete opposite of their kid-friendly and sugary-sweet marketing image and twisting it to fit their image. Not that these tales shouldn't be made into movies, but that Disney movies are a bad fit.My point is: why is it okay for other literature to be made into movies (and changed story-wise) but somehow Disney is at fault for what they do?
Sure, I'd agree with that.
I'd also argue that Disney's "Hunchback" absolutely was an artistic success. Its artistry was not in emulating the novel scene for scene, but in evoking many of the novel's themes while also creating its own within the milieu of the novel, all in the context of a very well-crafted animated musical.
BTW, it's worth pointing out that "Hunchback" (as well as, to a lesser extent, "Pocahontas" before it) made less $$$ than the preceding mega-successful Disney "renaissance" pictures - Mermaid, B&B, Aladdin, and Lion King - or even the ones that followed it (Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan), and that dip was largely attributed by market research with moviegoers as being "too dark/scary" or having "themes that were too adult" for the expected Disney audience.
I shudder to think what Disney would do with Les Miserables.
I'm sure it would be miserable! (rim shot)
Singing in the Rain
Good movie.
Sounds like someone has issues...I'd disagree. It still gives the message that you have to be the handsome prince to get the girl. Oh sure, if you're heroic people will admire you. Still, you look like ten miles of bad road, so you're going to have to get used to a celibacy as well as celebrity.
And yet, if you watch the movie, it's a great story.Is it identical to the original novel? Nope.
Is it great on its own? Yep.
You're just jealous that I had a girl on my arm at the con while you were going solo.
Singing in the RainGood movie.
Yup. Even better book.
Sure, but it's Disney. So, people know what to expect. And to play devil's advocate, live action 'true to source' versions of these same stories never do all that well. I mean really, can you name one that has?I think the overall point of the article is that Disney has a habit of taking literature that is the complete opposite of their kid-friendly and sugary-sweet marketing image and twisting it to fit their image. Not that these tales shouldn't be made into movies, but that Disney movies are a bad fit.My point is: why is it okay for other literature to be made into movies (and changed story-wise) but somehow Disney is at fault for what they do?
I don't think any film version can be considered exactly 'true to source.' When you change the medium you have to change your style. However, stories like The Hunchback of Notre Dame have been making appearances in film and on the stage for decades. Considering a good many of them are well before my time, I can't speak to their financial "success." However, I'd argue that artistic success can't be measured in dollar signs.
I shudder to think what Disney would do with Les Miserables.
True to source, truer to source whatever. The statement still stands.
And 'artistic' success is very subjective, its best to stick to what can be measured.
Sure, I'd agree with that.
I'd also argue that Disney's "Hunchback" absolutely was an artistic success. Its artistry was not in emulating the novel scene for scene, but in evoking many of the novel's themes while also creating its own within the milieu of the novel, all in the context of a very well-crafted animated musical.
BTW, it's worth pointing out that "Hunchback" (as well as, to a lesser extent, "Pocahontas" before it) made less $$$ than the preceding mega-successful Disney "renaissance" pictures - Mermaid, B&B, Aladdin, and Lion King - or even the ones that followed it (Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan), and that dip was largely attributed by market research with moviegoers as being "too dark/scary" or having "themes that were too adult" for the expected Disney audience.
Fair enough.
I shudder to think what Disney would do with Les Miserables.
I'm sure it would be miserable! (rim shot)
Thank you, thank you very much.
Fixed that for you.
And 'artistic' success is very subjective, its best to stick to what can be measured.
It's not subjective at all. It just takes more time to accurately assess. Look at literature. A lot of classic literature has stood the test of time because of its content, not its contemporary popularity. Moby Dick was poorly received in its day. Likewise, there are plenty of bestsellers from the same period that are completely unknown today.