Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the July 3 article: Jim on Film at <a href="News-ID180340.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180340.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By stans42 Walt Disney left us in 1966. His genius was not here to observe years 1967, 1968, and 1969. He did not view the 1970's and did not have a say so in the Disney Company during that time and the time that followed. Here we are, 2003, and I agree with Jim. Disney ought not become "Columbia Pictures with mouse ears." Still, the question remains, how do you bridge the generational gap from what Disney Company once was to what it currently is? In addition, times have changed and so has the culture. Many ask "What would Walt do?" It is one thing to say to carry on with Disney traditions and another thing to actually do it. How will Disney company go about it? It remains to be seen.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 If POTC was not based on a ride at Disney parks, then it would probally be released under the Touchtone banner. But because its based on a ride at a DISNEY park, its almost a must that they release it under the Disney banner to get as much cross promotion out of this as possible. Just my humble opinion.
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations Jim, Your article is well argued and I agree with many of your points. However, I think things will eventually right themselves. You are correct that the Disney Company has made a lot of money by setting a certain standard. I think the further they stray from that standard the less money they will make. So they will be forced back to the standard. At least I hope so. ) MouseBear
Originally Posted By u k fan It really doesn't bother me that PotC is a PG13 (don't know what it will be in the UK). Given the films subject matter I always assumed it would be. Even if it had been a G I know it wouldn't have been suitable for my 6 year old nephew to see with me. Likewise, if the Haunted Mansion was a G he wouldn't see that because of the subject matter. I've always found it odd that people care so much about what rating a Disney film gets. I don't think that this is the start of the slippery slope to "Columbia Pictures with mouse ears" . For that the blame should go to the DTV sequels, if it ever does happen (which I doubt). I do think that we get a different view of the Disney company here in the UK though, so that probably does skew my views on this!!!
Originally Posted By u k fan Actually, something has just occured to me. Had Snow White have been released while there was a ratings system in place it would have been at least a PG here. I don't know if you have PG in the states, but it's one step higher than your G rating because kids under 7 were not allowed to see it at the very least without an adult. It would be interesting to go through time and see what ratings were given to the older movies here in the UK!!!
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I agree wth most of what you said, Jim. However, the example used of "Jaws" being PG is a bit of a stretch. Had the PG-13 rating existed in 1975, surely Jaws would have earned it. Haven't seen POTC yet, but I'd be willing to bet $5 that there is far more visceral graphic violence (and let's not forget full nudity) in Jaws than POTC.
Originally Posted By JenniBarra >>It really doesn't bother me that PotC is a PG13 (don't know what it will be in the UK). Given the films subject matter I always assumed it would be. Even if it had been a G I know it wouldn't have been suitable for my 6 year old nephew to see with me. Likewise, if the Haunted Mansion was a G he wouldn't see that because of the subject matter.<< I think that's an interesting point, u k fan. Just the other day, I told my husband that I didn't think the movie would be for all audiences anyway, as the attraction is not necessarily for all audiences, either. (I write this as someone who, as a child, was terrified of PotC!)
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic The problem, of course, is that Disney seems so needy for cash successes that they are resorting to the "sure thing" PG-13 formulae to win audience attention and approval. In other words, their imagination is failing or, equivalently, their confidence in it. I don't buy the rationalizations like "20,000 Leagues" would get a PG-13 today. Look, none of the "Lord of the Rings" movies are allowed to get worse than PG-13 contractually. If that were really an important standard for Disney, they could simply tell their producers the films _have_ to be G to get shown and, as Peter Jackson does with LOTR, they need to edit until they are. And LOTR clearly deals with a lot of heavy and serious stuff yet manages somehow to steer clear of R. So why is this happening? Basically I think it's happening to Disney because those who run corporations no longer feel they have any responsibility to anyone beyond their stockholders and to them that responsibility is limited to fiduciary responsibility and profit. It isn't only happening to Disney. IBM used to take its relationship with the towns it built factories in very seriously, deliberately paying hefty taxes both to win easy approval of expansion plans and to provide good places for its employees to live. No longer. The spirit which moved many companies to participate in World's Fair kinds of activities is gone, those costs pruned because they are "not part of our core business". That's why companies are abandoning Epcot. And when raiders try to take over competitors in hostile takeovers, they no longer even pretend to care about the employees of the companies they are raiding. Oracle is trying to buy PeopleSoft and they announced at the outset they intended to cease supporting its products and would lay off all its employees. (That isn't even a smart thing to do, even if it's really the raider's intent.) Oracle has moderated its stance but, still. It seems the only responsibility CEOs and boards have now is to earn cash. With those kinds of values, of course Disney and every other corporation will use whatever gimmicks it can to make a profit. Personally, I think it is a strategy that will ultimately fail. What's the difference between Disney and Pixar? Pixar is run by a charismatic leader and businessman who always wears his values and what he stands for on his sleeve, even when it annoys people he's speaking to, even when it might not be in his or his company's financial interest. Like Walt Disney, he believes companies have missions and responsibilities beyond the balance sheet.
Originally Posted By Sir_Clinksalot Great article Jim, and I agree with most of your points. I do feel though, that the DTV sequels and the constant availability of the movies on DVD are what is damaging the 'Disney' name the most right now. It used to be a special event when a Disney movie would come out on Video, or the Theatre. Now, it's just there. You don't need to go and buy it quickly like in the past, because it will be there in a year. I mean, I have yet to buy Treasure Planet.
Originally Posted By kennect DisneyLogic, do you actually believe that Disney is stooping so low to get a rating that will improve the box office of a particular film??? Just for the need of getting some quick cash??? I just can't buy into your way of thinking on this matter....
Originally Posted By DeLorean Motors Not sure if anyone noticed... the front page description for this article lists POTC as "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Skull" though the title is actually "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl"... I'm assuming this is a typo? --DMC
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic kennect, no, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that there are recipes for scenes, interactions, subplots which are known to get attention and notice. Lovemaking scenes do, for instance. These don't require a lot of imagination and produce results. BUT, they also win "lower" ratings. It's harder to do something original and work to achieve attention using "G-rated" ingredients, not to mention riskier.
Originally Posted By CuriosWolfSo I can't help thinking that Disney really wanted that PG-13 rating to make themselves cooler to the teen market that they are desperately trying to reach after the failure of "Treasure Planet". Why? Because teens are the biggest piece of the movie-going audience, thus more money for Disney! But where do that leave the rest of us? The children and the older adults are going to be shut out. Hardly the family audience that Disney was famous for! (Notice that I said "was" in that last sentence!)
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Curious, how are the older adults going to be shut out? Just curious to how you came to that. I understand most kids will be shut out if they cannot handle the frightening scenes. One thing I noticed from watching Spider-Man and Daredevil at theatres. ALOT of parents take their kids to PG-13. So although this isn't a family film per-say, lots of families will still probally go to it.
Originally Posted By Jim Kennect, that's EXACTLY what I think is happening. Studios do it ALL the time. The reality is, when I think of the PG-13 movies I've seen, they could all easily have been G or PG. Just wait . . . if PIRATES is a hit, I have no doubt HAUNTED MANSION will be PG-13. I think this whole situation is interesting . . . this movie cost $140 million (TREASURE PLANET, echo, echo, echo). Eisner has said that they are no longer going for homeruns but "singles and doubles." This seems like an AWFULLY expensive gamble. I guess we will have to see what happens. I could see the box office going either way (though I have a doubt it will earn back it's cost). I don't remember anything that ofensive in Jaws . . . But I think that Disney is completely capable of making smash hits without this sort of stunt. These past few years, they've had some major hits . . . ROOKIE, REMEMBER THE TITANS, PRINCESS DIARIES, SNOW DOGS, HOLES . . .
Originally Posted By pammywood Hey Jim, I agree with pretty much all of what you had to say. I will see POTC because I'm a big fan of pirates and the ride. But it is a disappointment to me that it received the PG-13 rating. Sometimes when I watch Disney movies these days, or even a series on the Disney Channel....and I see young girls in belly baring tops, I always remember that Walt wouldn't have allowed that. It makes me sad. Just because our society is going down the toilet doesn't mean we all have to follow it. I'm glad to know there are still some who value the decency of the original Disney name. While I'm here, I'd also like to say something about the Disney Channel. They show such garbage now, and the same things over and over. Even movies that aren't Disney. Why did they take the Vault Disney out? Do they think that we don't enjoy seeing that vintage stuff anymore? That's what I grew up with and I miss it now. I know plenty of young kids that enjoy the old movies such as Parent Trap, Herbie, and Treasure Island. I think the studios putting more mature material in their programming is what's causeing our younger generation to be like they are. If they went back to the old formulas of clean, moral entertainment...children would enjoy it. But it's going to take more than one company to accomplish that. Well, anyway, sorry for the rambling. This is something I've felt strongly about for quite some time now, and you wrote it all out for me and I appreciate it. Thanks! )
Originally Posted By narkspud Lord knows I hate the cheap sequels, but sorry, I just can't get behind the argument that this movie represents any kind of retreat from anything Disney, at least until I've seen it. >>it includes images of hanged bodies and pistols fired point-blank at people.<< There are lots of pistols being fired almost point blank at people in the POTC ride. All the computer-animated creeps in the trailer are based on figures in the ride. There's a VERY vivid image of a hanged body in Haunted Mansion. Ratings standards do change. Violence will get you a PG-13 a lot faster than sex nowadays . . . it used to be reversed. I don't know if 20,000 Leagues would have been handed a PG-13, but we know that Treasure Island got a PG back when there was no PG-13 (bloody knife wounds and point-blank shootings in that too, y'know). Disney was never afraid to scare the snot out of kids--"The Mad Doctor," a Mickey Mouse cartoon released in 1933, was BANNED in England for exactly that reason, and I don't need to go through the litany of scary moments in the animated features. Let's see POTC before we shout the "not Disney enough!!" battle cry. Recent Disney has given us plenty enough genuine stupidity to complain about.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper Right on, Pammywood. I was just typing a message that said pretty much what you did. Good thing I re-loaded the page! It gets worse on ABC Family. What a joke, except it really isn't that funny. I can't tell you how many times I've been channel-flipping during commercials when I've stopped on ABC Family to find some stupid movie where sex is the primary topic of discussion. It's not educational discussion, either. It's just tacky and cheap. What garbage. I have to disagree that Disney will be forced to abandon 'adult' fare and return to its bread and butter. QUALITY family films have been Hollywood's biggest successes for years and years. They don't care. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings (okay for older kids only), My Big Fat Greek Wedding (mostly classy, with a few unneccessary exceptions), etc. But we continue to get cheap R-rated garbage that never does quite as well. So, why does Hollywood continue to invest mostly in R-rated movies, which often get trounced by good family-friendly movies? Because Hollywood isn't just about money, it's about ego. They live wild, sexed-up, irresponsible lives, and they want everyone else to see it and marvel about how 'hip' Hollywood is. It's not just a business to them ... it's a sick obsession, where they see just how far they can go, recruit young people to their careless and amoral lifestyles, shock their audiences and offend conservative people. Things won't change until people like Walt Disney get back in control, and bring some principled leadership back into the entertainment industry. This nonsense is here to stay, at least until Eisner goes.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 HyperTyper, Do you believe POTC is as family friendly for older kids as Lord of the Rings? I think PG-13 is good for POTC because its not getting that rating for sex or vulgar language. Its getting that rating for violence, thats it. So alot of the arguments against the movie do not hold up. I just ask that you screen the movie yourself before you berate it for being a PG-13 movie. Or if you prefer watch Charlies Angels then POTC and decide which one is truly PG-13. I'd rather my son watch violence then see gratitious sexual situations any dat of the week.
