Originally Posted By FerretAfros I also don't get it. The previous live action version did a decent job staying true to the original book, and the animated version will always be considered a classic. I just don't see what this brings to the table that we haven't seen before I also agree that the realistic look just didn't work with the CGI characters. They don't seem to fit the backgrounds (like The Good Dinosaur), and even the scale seems off for a lot of them. It seemed strange to me when I first heard of the project, and it still seems strange now
Originally Posted By dagobert I'm also not a big fan of Disney's live action fairy tale movies, but apparently they don't do so bad at the box office. I don't see any difference to former years when they realeased other live action movies under the Disney brand. Except for Pirates or National Treasure Disney was never a live action studio for me, because most Disney movies just didn't interest me. Of course they released a ton of live action movies under Touchstone, Hollywood Pictures or Miramax, but that's now Marvel and Lucasfilm. However I would love to see a Jerry Bruckheimer action movie from Disney again. With Steven Spielberg moving from Disney to Universal, maybe Touchstone will be used for adult oriented movies again. It's still a shame Disney sold Miramax. That studio had so many great Oscar awarded movies, but I guess with the Weinsteins out of the house, there was no reason to keep it. Over here nearly no one knows that many Tarantino movies were from Disney.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I just don't see what this brings to the table that we haven't seen before<< In the trailer, the in-joke is Baloo humming a little bit of Bear Necessities. That sort of self-referential thing gets old really fast. Jungle Book has been made and remade, like Cinderella, many times. There are a million books that have never been made into a movie. It'd be nice if film makers looked for something we haven't seen time and again, but I am sure something new and untested is a much harder sell to producers than something with a built-in audience.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I thought the first trailer was a lot better than the second one when the animals started to talk. I predict this one will not do very well.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I agree that the loss of Touchstone, Miramax, and Hollywood Pictures was a big blow to Disney. Those studios allowed Disney to make some really high-quality content that simply wouldn't be appropriate for the Disney brand. It allowed them to have a serious side, while simultaneously maintaining the family-friendly branding. Under Iger, everything has fallen under the Disney label, and it seems like the diversity of the films has suffered significantly as a result. These days, Disney is just a name for cartoons, superheroes, and old rehashed ideas
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>Under Iger, everything has fallen under the Disney label, and it seems like the diversity of the films has suffered significantly as a result. These days, Disney is just a name for cartoons, superheroes, and old rehashed ideas<<< Although I'm not happy with Iger's direction, but under him the live action movies under the Disney banner are doing better than before him. Disney released so many stupid live action movies before, like Princess Diaries. So the Disney branded live action movies were always bad. They had some lucky punches like POTC or National Treasure, but in general the Disney live action movies weren't good or successful. That tradition lives on with their sports movies or with the recent The Finest Hours. I'm a big Marvel fan and of course Star Wars, so I'm quite happy with these movies, but Disney needs to bring back movies that are able to win awards. I don't count the Spielberg movies that Disney releases under Touchstone, because they only ditribute them. I really hope that after Spielberg is gone, Disney tries to make such films on their own again. Disney has Kathleen Kennedy now and she is one of the most succesfull producers ever. She could bring in big names for more adult oriented movies. Alan Horn run Warner Bros and the studio brought us movies like Lord of the Rings. So Disney has the resources and the right persons for such films. I wonder how things would have turned out if Eisner hadn't parted with the Weinsteins. Would Disney still make movies like Chicago, Pulp Fiction or Kill Bill? Eisner was coming from Paramount, a film studio, while Iger came from TV, maybe that's also a reason why Disney was so diverse when it came to movies in the 90s. I guess Disney needs a CEO with a studios background, unfortunately Alan Horn is too old to take over from Iger. I would like to see Kathleen Kennedy after Iger, but I think it will be Staggs.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I agree that the Disney-branded live action films have gone up in quality, but the overall quality seems to have dropped when you count Disney's other holdings from the Eisner era. Traditionally, Disney's live action films have followed the basic Princess Diaries format (though I'm not sure why that one was *such* a big hit), with a family friendly approach to a somewhat-dopey plot. They were never meant to be big international home run, but rather "singles and doubles" (to quote a famous internal memo) that kept things running and were low-risk Although most of them have been forgotten through the years, there were a lot of really fun films in that mix. I think part of the reason I rarely go to the movies any more is because everything has become such a big serious production that it feels like work just to watch it. Heck, you can't even watch a Marvel movie unless you've seen the 13 prequels, since everything is tied together >>That tradition lives on with their sports movies or with the recent The Finest Hours.<< On a related note, I saw The Finest Hours over the weekend. I don't think it will win any awards or anything (wrong type of movie), but it was really really good! It certainly had similarities to the smaller Disney films of yore (though with a much bigger effects budget), and I'd definitely recommend it!
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>On a related note, I saw The Finest Hours over the weekend. I don't think it will win any awards or anything (wrong type of movie), but it was really really good! It certainly had similarities to the smaller Disney films of yore (though with a much bigger effects budget), and I'd definitely recommend it!<<< I'm not sure if it is shown over here, at least not now. Maybe later in the year. >>>eck, you can't even watch a Marvel movie unless you've seen the 13 prequels, since everything is tied together<<< In my opinion that's not entirely true. Of course it helps to know all movies to get the whole background, but the movies work on their own as well. I also think it was a very bold move of Marvel, not Disney, to create this connected Cinematic Universe. It hasn't been done before on that scale.
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>but the overall quality seems to have dropped when you count Disney's other holdings from the Eisner era.<<< That's definitely true. Miramax was Disney's quality studio and that one alone was responsible for nearly all of Disney's Oscars. Touchstone on the other hand was not better than Marvel or Lucasfilm today, but they released some fun movies.
Originally Posted By dagobert I want to add, that cinema in general changed a lot during the last decade. It's not only Disney. Aside from a few high profile actors like Clooney there aren't many quality movies out there. All studios bring sequels and prequels, super hero movies to make money, while their other movies fail at the box office. I think one reason for that is the new technology for cinemas. Movies are released in Dolby Atmos, Dolby Vision, IMAX or 3D, which makes the visit to the cinemas even more expensive. That's the reason why I only watch the blockbuster movies in cinemas, while smaller ones have to wait until VoD.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Would it surprise you that I feel the same way?> Would it surprise you that I do too? >it only serves to pull me further out of the movie hearing a recognizable voice like Christopher Walken or Bill Murray.> Totally agree. IMO that only sporadically works for animated movies, and it's even worse in a situation like this where we're clearly watching a "trick."
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I want to add, that cinema in general changed a lot during the last decade. It's not only Disney.<< This is sort of a chicken/egg situation for me. Yes, other studios have trended in that direction, but the tentpole strategy was one of Iger's first big moves when he first took over (along with quicker turnaround to DVD/digital sales after theatrical releases). It's hard to say if things would have gone that way regardless, or if everybody is copying Disney's success Given the number of big films that copy from existing movies, I have to think there's at least a little bit of that going on here
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>or if everybody is copying Disney's success<<< If that's the reason, then the CEOs of the other Hollywood studios should rethink if they are capable of heading a studio. Just because one studio changes the businessplan, all others do the same? Until now it only worked for Disney. Last year Universal had a fantastic run too, but given their slate this year, they will not repeat that success. Disney probably will and although many don't like the current strategy, me included, it shows that Disney does a good job with the Marvel und Lucasfilm brands. Even the Disney branded movies are doing better. I'm curious how Warner Bros will do in the future with the new Harry Potter spin offs and the DC Cinematic Universe. Batman vs Superman doesn't interest me at all, a Batman standalone however would. When it comes to superhero movies, I would say Sony (Spider-Man) and Fox (X-Men) are responsible for the current amount of movies. Marvel with its own studio stepped in later and with Disney not having any succesful movies at that time chose the cheapest way and just bought it. I'm totally fine with that, because I've always enjoyed the Marvel superheroes and don't mind them being under the Disney umbrella. And I also don't mind seeing them in the parks, so was Lucasfilm before the purchase. And Disney not being overly succesful was not Iger's fault. That was only Michael Eisner. Under him the live action studio didn't have big hits, except for POTC and even that one he didn't like and predicted a failure. He lost Pixar and although they are also on the cheap with sequels and prequels, they usually bring in a lot of money and are still better than most animated movies from the competition. So while I still think that Disney could do a lot better with the studio and should release more high quality films like they did with Miramax, Disney is far better off than it was at the end of Eisner's turn. In that regard Iger deserves some credit. As I mentioned before, I'm also not Iger's biggest fan, but sometimes I think people are just against him, to be against something. Times change and so does the economy. Disney was in a bad shape when Eisner left, maybe not financially but it definitely didn't have the shape it has now or when Frank Wells died. Under Iger not only did the studios better, but also the parks received some attention. Maybe not on the same level like during Eisner's first years, but DCA was transformed into a lovely park, one billion Dollars were put into DLP, HKDL received new lands with a high quality ride, Star Wars land is coming, DHS is getting an expansion with Toy Story and SDL is opening. SDL might be over budget, so was DLP under Eisner and it nearly ruined the resort, but SDL looks like a lovely park and it wasn't Iger's idea alone. Talks already started during HKDL's construction. I just think that we fans have a very special view on Disney and especially older fans want everything to stay as it was. Walt Disney has been dead for 50 years and you still can read that he wouldn't have done this or wouldn't have done that. Who knows what he might have done. All I just want to say is that I'm also glad when Disney is getting a new CEO, ten years is enough, but Iger did not such a bad job as many say he does. However there's one thing I really hate and that is his love for franchises. Hopefully that changes with a new CEO. I doubt it, because the new one will be from inside the company. Still there is a slight chance, because Iger came also from inside and changed it completely from Eisner's course. I'm sorry for my rant ;-)
Originally Posted By dagobert @ Ferret I just wanted to add that my rant is not meant towards you, but in general, because that is not entirely clear in my post. Currently there's just such an aversion against the management team on Disney fan forums, that I felt the need to say something positive about the leadership team.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros I agree that Iger isn’t really as bad as some people (myself included) often say, but I also don’t think he’s that great. Sure, the Studios have been successful under his reign, but his approach of doing sequels, reboots, and spin-offs continually narrows what “Disney” is. At least with Eisner, it was constantly expanding and including new things. Additionally, although Iger is doing some good, it isn’t nearly enough for the amount of time he’s been in charge. He’s been there for more than 10 years at this point, and has relatively little to show for it >> Under Iger not only did the studios better, but also the parks received some attention.<< Yes, they did get *some* attention, but investments in the parks have been at historically low rates under Iger. One could easily argue that many of the big lands (MK’s Fantasyland, DAK’s Avatar, Studios’ Star Wars) were forced into existence because it’s been so long since any meaningful additions had been done to any of those parks (even DL suffers from this, though it’s strong roster helps people overlook that its last major addition was in 1995). Things built under Iger’s reign have been very nice to look at, but are often lacking when it comes to ride experiences; at least he’s shown that when he’s willing to do something for the parks, he’s willing to make it completely over-the-top, even if it’s just a simple meet & greet (which, honestly, shouldn’t have nearly the emphasis they’ve gotten in his years) Also during his time, the entertainment at the parks has been particularly stagnant. I’m typically more of a fan of rides, but it’s hard to ignore that most shows in WDW haven’t changed at all during his time. Wishes at MK is well on its way to outlasting MSEP at DL for longest-running nighttime show, and the Indiana Jones stunt show at the Studios is essentially unchanged from its debut in 1989. Even the little castle stage show is approaching its 10 year anniversary. And these are the sorts of things that are pretty cheap and easy to update regularly (the big expense is actually performing them daily), so there’s really no reason that they haven’t been updated >> … but SDL looks like a lovely park and it wasn't Iger's idea alone.<< SDL certainly wasn’t all Iger; it was developed under Eisner, but he stepped back when the Chinese government wouldn’t allow Disney to have a media network as part of the agreement (TV is heavily censored in mainland China, which surely is part of the reason). Iger didn’t seem to have any problems bending to the government’s whim (what ever happened to the $800M for “capacity improvements” that got added a year or two ago?) and it seems pretty clear to me that he’s not the one in charge there
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>I agree that Iger isn’t really as bad as some people (myself included) often say, but I also don’t think he’s that great. Sure, the Studios have been successful under his reign, but his approach of doing sequels, reboots, and spin-offs continually narrows what “Disney” is. At least with Eisner, it was constantly expanding and including new things. Additionally, although Iger is doing some good, it isn’t nearly enough for the amount of time he’s been in charge. He’s been there for more than 10 years at this point, and has relatively little to show for it<<< I see your point. While Eisner started right away, it seems Iger needed more time to find his way. However I think the situations are very different. When Eisner came, Disney was on the verge of being broken up and being sold in pieces. There was no big Disney company, there were no successful movies, just some themeparks and some merchnadise. Eisner did a fantastic job growing the company, but it's easier starting from nothing. What do you mean with narrowing "Disney"? You are right, Disney is doing many prequels and sequels, but that did Eisner too. Back then they were of cheap quality and released directly on VHS or DVD. The Disney animated movies totally improved under Iger compared to what Disney did after The Lion King. Frozen 2 seems to be the only sequel coming drom Disney Animation. I admit that these direct to DVD movies still happen, see Planes, although it was in cinema over here, but not as often as during Eisner. Disney Live Action shifted from many cheap movies to a few fairy tale based tentpole movies. Honestly I don't see a negativity here. I'm only annoyed that Iger shuttered Touchstone and Miramax, but that's not narrowing Disney, because I'm sure most people didn't know that these brands were Disney. Pixar on the other hand got worse and here I do blame Iger. However he gets credit for bringing Pixar back, because otherwise I'm not so sure Disney Animation would have bounced back too. While I think Eisner gets too much credit and too less blame, Iger gets too less credit and too much blame. Disney Animation was Roy E. Disney and Jeffrey Katzenberg and not Eisner. Today it's John Lasseter and not Iger. None of the CEOs was responsible for a movie. >>>Yes, they did get *some* attention, but investments in the parks have been at historically low rates under Iger. One could easily argue that many of the big lands (MK’s Fantasyland, DAK’s Avatar, Studios’ Star Wars) were forced into existence because it’s been so long since any meaningful additions had been done to any of those parks (even DL suffers from this, though it’s strong roster helps people overlook that its last major addition was in 1995). Things built under Iger’s reign have been very nice to look at, but are often lacking when it comes to ride experiences; at least he’s shown that when he’s willing to do something for the parks, he’s willing to make it completely over-the-top, even if it’s just a simple meet & greet (which, honestly, shouldn’t have nearly the emphasis they’ve gotten in his years)<<< You are right, Disney wasn't investing a lot in recent years. Eisner was definitely better for the parks, but there's some light at the end of the tunnel. I don't know how much influence the CEO has, but WDI could be so much better. They really went down hill in recent years. The new projects take so long to get finished and cost a lot. Still, they created some fantastic rides too, like Ratatouille or Mystic Manor or Carsland. Maybe the new president of WDI Bob Weis will change things together with the new Parks & Resorts boss Chapek. >>>Also during his time, the entertainment at the parks has been particularly stagnant. I’m typically more of a fan of rides, but it’s hard to ignore that most shows in WDW haven’t changed at all during his time. Wishes at MK is well on its way to outlasting MSEP at DL for longest-running nighttime show, and the Indiana Jones stunt show at the Studios is essentially unchanged from its debut in 1989. Even the little castle stage show is approaching its 10 year anniversary. And these are the sorts of things that are pretty cheap and easy to update regularly (the big expense is actually performing them daily), so there’s really no reason that they haven’t been updated<< Here I agree too. Even DLP with no money updates its shows on a regular basis. However WDW and DL have their own management teams. Can't they decide such things on their own? I also blame Staggs and Iger for not doing anything. >>>SDL certainly wasn’t all Iger; it was developed under Eisner, but he stepped back when the Chinese government wouldn’t allow Disney to have a media network as part of the agreement (TV is heavily censored in mainland China, which surely is part of the reason).<<< I didn't know that. I mean, I know that TV is censored, but not that Disney stepped back because of a TV station. I always thought the main reason for building a Disney Resort in mainland China was to be involved with the goverment to get more protection of the IPs. >>>Iger didn’t seem to have any problems bending to the government’s whim (what ever happened to the $800M for “capacity improvements” that got added a year or two ago?) and it seems pretty clear to me that he’s not the one in charge there<<< I agree that Disney might not be in charge over there. Hopefully they will not get screwed over. But at least it's authentically Disney and distinctly Chinese. I also wonder what happened to that $800 mio investment.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>What do you mean with narrowing "Disney"?<< Under Eisner, it seemed like Disney was constantly incorporating new things into the fold. They added a cruise line, Broadway shows, major television networks, etc. It seemed like every year or two there was some new and unusual thing that was becoming part of Disney. Even within a relatively narrow segment like the parks or animation studios, it seemed like there was a lot of variety of what was being done; it was common to find new and unusual stuff being added into the mix (like the Millennium Celebration at Epcot or a lot of DCA1.0) that was quintessentially “Disney”, yet completely different than anything they’d done before Under Iger, we basically have the same divisions we had in 2005. Disney is no longer known for being high quality in whatever they do, they’re known for princesses, superheroes, and remakes, and for cross-promoting things through every arm of the company. While it still makes good stuff, it’s not nearly as exciting as when they were really on top of their game >>While I think Eisner gets too much credit and too less blame, Iger gets too less credit and too much blame.<< The online community in the early 00’s was much more fiery about Eisner than they are now about Iger. At a certain point, I think people just want a change in the status quo, much like with politicians. Iger seems to have outstayed his welcome, and meanwhile Eisner’s time is viewed with rose-colored glasses >>. However WDW and DL have their own management teams. Can't they decide such things on their own?<< I think a lot of the operations are up to the local teams, but at a certain point their budgets are dictated by corporate. It seems like WDW in particular has just barely enough money to operate, without enough for any real maintenance or additions
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I always thought the main reason for building a Disney Resort in mainland China was to be involved with the goverment to get more protection of the IPs.<< Me too. I’ll be very curious to see how the company handles that sort of thing without a network of their own. Obviously the resort will give them a large physical presence in China, but I’m not sure that will be enough >>I agree that Disney might not be in charge over there. Hopefully they will not get screwed over. But at least it's authentically Disney and distinctly Chinese.<< I literally laughed out loud at this! : ) >>I also wonder what happened to that $800 mio investment.<< That’s the big question at the moment. It sure looks like it was simply to bribe government officials, but it’s hard to say. Disney hasn’t really done much to dispel that rumor (other than getting some unflattering articles removed from websites, which only reinforces the idea) In addition, Disney likes to promote that there are 300 million people living within a 3.5-hour trip of SDL. However, with the ticket prices they’ve announced (fairly cheap by Disney’s standards), I wonder how many of those people can actually afford a trip to the park. Although China’s middle class is growing, the overwhelming majority of the country is still very poor. International visitors are unlikely to visit the park (though the government did just change the visa rules, so many international travelers can visit the Shanghai area for 6 days without a travel visa), so I really wonder where the guests will come from, and just how many there will be
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>IMO that only sporadically works for animated movies, and it's even worse in a situation like this where we're clearly watching a "trick."<< I'm kind of tired of the recognizable voices doing basically riffs on their existing persona. I know it's nothing new (radio star Jerry Colona in Alice and Wonderland comes to minds but one of many examples) but it would be nice to instead try having actual voice actors acting.
Originally Posted By dagobert Now I get what you meant with narrowing Disney. I thought you were only speaking about the Studio and not about the whole company. Iger added two more ships to DCL, but in general I have to agree. Eisner added a lot to Disney. >>>The online community in the early 00’s was much more fiery about Eisner than they are now about Iger. At a certain point, I think people just want a change in the status quo, much like with politicians. Iger seems to have outstayed his welcome, and meanwhile Eisner’s time is viewed with rose-colored glasses<<< I'm not saying that Eisner was a bad CEO, on the contrary, but I think the same about Iger too. I guess I'm too young to really know Eisner's time. My knowledge about Eisner's bad years comes from the book "Disney War". I think without the Lucasfilm acquisition and the delay of SDL Iger would be out of the company already. He wanted so see what impact Star Wars would have again and it has a big one. SDL is the only park he is going to open, and I'm sure since it was constructed during his tenure, he wants to open it by himself. I totally understand that. However afterwards it's time for a change. It seems Disney CEOs overstay there welcome in general. Eisner was forced out by Roy E Disney and so was Miller before him.
