Old news...But can we talk? Shrek was dreck!

[Peter Pirate]

I just saw Shrek (it never came to our humble town) and I'm glad as I would have felt bad paying theatre prices for this piece of crap...Which could be construed as a compliment, I suppose, based on the enormity of "bathroom-low brow" humor in existence (16 jokes to my count) in this film.

Anyway, IMO, this movie serves to show that the media, hype & the general bad taste of the public is really all that is required to foster success (as exhibit A I introduce Pauly Shore, Daisy Fuentes & of course, Brittney Spears). The first hour of this film had me wondering what I was doing watching this movie. My wife, who IS NOT a Disney nut, asked me "this movie didn't do very well, did it?" When I informed her, she uttered a line she has picked up from me, "oh...We are very close to the end of civilization as we know it".

Midway there were two or three touching, fairy tale type scenes and the movie improved as Shrek was given feelings. The final musical scene was, IMO, the highlight of the movie.

As to the Disney references, they DID play into the plot so they weren't offensive to me. In fact the Robin Hood portion was very funny, indeed.

This film reminded me a lot of the Emperor's New Groove...An attempt a new kind of hip animation but it really left me cold and with no desire to watch it again. Further, the 3-D-ish animation was lost on me as it was too realistic...not enough "cartoon". The movie will have no staying power for future generations as such Disney classics have had and will seem amaturish in retrospect. Eddie Murphy was a joke, a shallow imitation of Mushu in Mulan & while I actually did like Shrek & the Princess, the story was so bad that I didn't care (however, I chortled at the resemblence of Shrek and Michael Eisner).

This movie in my eyes, was a step above Emperor's New Groove, although both of my kids liked "Emperor" better (while I liked Shrek a little better & my wife hated both). I can accept that Shrek is a "hit", but in no way does this signal to me that this is the beginning of anything new. Shrek two is bound to be a disappointment and then D'works will be back in the toilet where they belong. Road to El Dorado, Antz & Shrek show no body of achievment and will produce no "classics" & 'crapper' humor can only take you so far...

I haven't seen Atlantis yet, but I will admit to not liking recent Disney releases as much as the trend setters, Mermaid, B&tB, Aladdin & LK,but compared to Shrek I think Hercules & Tarzan look brilliant!

Surely not all DIS'ers found Shrek brilliant, did you?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[DVC-Landbaron]

Everything in life is timing. As it happens I too watched Shrek over the weekend. My wife suggested it as she had already seen it with the kids and everyone in the family agreed that it was the video of choice.

Peter!!! Again!!! You are wrong! It's not great cinema by any means, but it is 'good stuff'.

Man! I wish that some science fiction were really true. Cause I'd place my entire fortune (mortgage and all) on a bet. I'd bet the farm that, in this alternate universe, if Disney's name were on the label, we'd be hearing from the 'alternative pirate' what an absolutely charming film this was. And by the way, weren't you just blown away with the computer animation!!?? Sooooo life-like!! Amazing!! Gosh those Disney folks are geniuses!!! Let see the midget put something out like that!!!!

[raidermatt]

Agreed. Shrek was reasonably entertaining, but its success was more a function of Disney's recent inability to put out a quality animated film than anything else.

Bathroom humor produces hits. Combine it with the public's desire for a decent animated movie and you've got Shrek's success. But it does not produce a classic, and Shrek will not be a lasting favorite that our kids will share with their children. Had the release dates for Monsters and Atlantis been switched, Shrek would not have drawn as well as it did, while Monsters would likely have a higher box office total than it has managed in the slow November season. (slow until Thanksgiving...)

Dreamworks needed some kind of hit from their animated division, and they certainly deserve some credit for producing one. But they are hardly filling the void Disney has left with its lack of quality family-oriented animated films. It still appears only Disney has that ability. The Disney-Pixar collaberations have been great, but the Disney animated division needs to step-up.

[addicted_to_WDW]

Not brilliant, but pretty darned clever.

I give Shrek 2 thumbs up!

[Bob O]

People may or may not like the movie but the marketplace sure spoke loudly and clearly and the movie was a major commerical hit, and tottaly agree that potty humor sells very well with kids.

[JeffJewell]

As to the Disney references, they DID play into the plot so they weren't offensive to me. In fact the Robin Hood portion was very funny, indeed. ...it's interesting that so many people have retroactively branded tales sometimes hundreds of years old as being Disney material. Shrek even made a point, in several places, to reference non-Disney adaptations of the classic stories.

What's even more interesting to me is that I've never seen anyone mention the most obvious Disney rip-off: that the dragon is Figment (now _that's_ a Figment worth building a ride around).D'works will be back in the toilet where they belong You know, a person might be more inclined to agree to disagree with you if you'd left those last three words off of there.Surely not all DIS'ers found Shrek brilliant, did you? I saw Shrek just this past week or so, while at a family function. Some cousin received Shrek as a birthday gift, and about ten of us watched it. I thought the story was okay, the computer animation was pretty good (very good in a couple of places), and that it was, overall, pretty funny. Not brilliant, no, but everyone seemed to enjoy it (although it's certainly possible that Grandmommie was just enjoying us enjoying the movie; not so much the movie itself... that's just the kind of woman she is).

Of far more interest to me than the actual topic of your post, were the curiously venomous tone of the whole thing and the reference to Disney's trendsetting films, like "Mermaid, B&tB, Aladdin & LK." To my mind, the musical love stories represent only one important trend in Disney's film history.

Jeff

[All Aboard]

Pirate, you "homer" you!

I agree that Shrek shortcutted it's way to humor through the use of fart jokes. But, in all, we found Shrek to be very funny, very clever and has been watched over and over at our house.

btw, Emporer was a very good movie. I don't understand why folks don't like it.

[Peter Pirate]

Pirate, you "homer" you
OK, you guys caught me...Somewhat! Greg, you KNEW I was a "homer" and Landbaron, I do wonder if the Disney name wold have made a difference, but the fact is I'm really looking forward to Harry Potter...And Jeff, I was a bit negative I realize (but no offense intended), and as to those last three words, I agree but they were included as a little bathroom humor of my own (play on a theme sort of thing, you know)...

As to why we don't like Emperor, I think, for me, it was just the character development...As for Shrek, the story was ok, but like I said, to me the first hour was (IMO)...terrible, excrutiating, painful...get it?:D

Also, I don't think Shrek is the kind of movie they'd better hang their hat on for the sequel...Just not enough substance there, IMO, so there had better be another idea better than El Dorado on the drawing boards...Although, as Bob O points out, they certainly DID come to the first one...
:cool: :cool: :bounce:

[YoHo]

I enjoyed Emperor's new Groove much more then Shrek.

I was impressed with the animation before I saw Monster Inc. and the Previews for Final fantasy.

I really don't see a story for Shrek 2, but hey who knows.


Hidden in between the Amayzing LotR Preview and the Forbidden Love Star Wars Preview (Boba Fett with Jet Pack and John Woo Style duel guns WOO HOO)
before Harry Potter was a Preview for the next Dreamworks Traditional Animation story. It supposed to be the Story of a Mustang (Horse not Car) I don't remember the name (AV?) It looked like it could be good. At least as good as Prince of Egypt.

[raidermatt]

I thought Emporer's New Groove was funny, but it didn't have any "heart". As somebody else said, there was a lack of character development, which left me feeling indifferent towards the characters, especially the Emporer.

As I said, I missed Atlantis. I would put Hercules above Emporer, were it not for the extremely irritating narrators. I liked Tarzan. Not Disney's best, but had the right idea.

[airlarry!]

Wow, I like this topic. I've seen Shrek & Groove, and "Groove" is much more funny IMHO. I agree with some of the above who have said that while Shrek is no alltime classic, it certainly is funny. It is no Toy Story 2 (which I watched again this weekend, and was blown away again at the visuals and the story), but the Robin Hood scene *has* to go down as a classic animated scene.

But to those Groove detractors -- I would love to hear AV's take on this, but Groove was the funniest, most different Disney film I've seen. Maybe 'cause I like ironic humor, but man this movie gets funnier every time I see it. What is sad about the movie is the utter lack of promotion Disney gave it. Here was a movie that every teen I know that has seen it says he/she liked the hip humor, and Disney sends it out like an American League pitcher in a interleague game against Randy Johnson -- with no expectation of a good result.

The directors and producers of this 'cult' hit deserved much better in my opinion. My wife and my family gave it two thumbs -- way up.

BTW: the next DW movie is "Spirit" I believe a movie about a horse.

[eeyore0062]

Well, count me among the thousands with bad taste, because I thought it was hilarious... no maybe not for kids, but definitely for teens and adults! The humor flew right over my 7 yo's head, but she liked it. Into everyone's life some potty humor must fall!

I am unabashedly a huge Disney fan... but even I found humor in the sly jabs the movie took at Disney. It was all in fun!

Can't wait to buy the DVD!!!

[Peter Pirate]

Well, count me among the thousands with bad taste
Thanks eeyore0062, for the chance to catagorize that "bad taste" statement. I hope you know I'm not really being judgemental but only attempting to stimulate conversation with bombastic opinions only based on some demension of Pirate truth...No personal assualt intended...

I'm going to have to watch Emperor again as too many respected opinions have voiced praise for it. As for Shrek, I think what you see is what you get and I was stunned by two or three lines of sexual innuendo that I wasn't expecting. Don't get me wrong, the Pirate household is a liberal and open household, but these comments were unexpected and quite blatent...Not really Disney style...But with a midget, who knows???;)
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[YoHo]

After Some of the Scenes in The Road to El Dorado, I can't see how'd you be surprised by any of the Sexual Innuendo. that movie was practically offensive. My only hope is that DreamWorks can't think of a way to work it into a story about horses.

[Disnsyncey]

I too just recently saw Shrek---

I had heard about the adult humor and that was the reason I had convinced myself not to see it this summer, but my friend wanted to see it really bad, and I was kinda looking forard to renting it. We saw the matinee of Monsters and then rented Shrek that night. That wasn't a good idea. I kept comparing it to Monsters (which was of course, sooo much better). I don't know what it was about the animation, but it didn't seem real, or something......like the characters faces were weird. I especially didn't like the fact that they used a** a lot in a PG movie. Its technically not allowed in a PG movie, yet they strategically placed it where they were talking about the donkey, but was SOOOO taken the other way, and I kinda felt that was kinda underhanded. Then the story, I dunno what to say, but it didn't impress me much.

I LOVE New Groove (that's me and my friend's name for it, we talk about it so much). The last scene in it is THE FUNNIEST scene in a Disney movie that we have seen in a LONG time. We are constantly are quoting it "Is that my voice?!?!?" "Squeak, squeaker, squeakedy squeak" (BTW-we're 18 and 19)

Later!
Kat

[Another Voice]

One of the hardest lessons to learn about movies is that there is a difference between a movie you “like” and a movie that’s “good” and a movie that’s “popular”. Some of my favorite movies are both financial and box office flops; some of the worst films I’ve ever suffered through end up winning Best Picture. After a while you understand that people are going to like what they like and they’re going to see what they’re going to see. People have trying to figure out the situation since the ancient Greeks – and I’m not holding my breath that Hollywood is going to get it any better than the guys in the robes did.

Personally, I really liked ‘Shrek’. To me, it’s the a good old fashioned fairy tale – with an old fashioned morale and an old fashioned happy ending – that’s been wrapped in a package for a world drowned in media, marketing and hype. Yes, there are some disgusting scenes early on because Shrek is an ORGE and they’re not supposed to be pleasant creatures. It’s also a nice change from the stereotyped happy fluffy bunny “heroes” that are the subject of most “animated movies”. ‘Shrek’ is a grown-up film aimed at a grown-up audience. I think many people enjoyed seeing something familiar, but presented in a way that winked at all the clichés and conceits that don’t fit in the modern, adult world.

And as for the toilet humor, how come no one has complained about the very literal toilet humor in ‘Monsters, Inc.’? And how many times did the eyeball monster get slammed in his groin? No one seems to be complaining about that charming piece of physical humor. ‘Toilet humor’ is very much a personal viewpoint. For me, it worked in ‘Shrek’ because it was part of explaining the characters and wasn’t done simply for a cheap laugh.

On ‘Emperor’, I’m going to have to plead the fifth on that one for the time being. I know far too much about ‘Empire in the Sun’ to see ‘Emperor’ in an objective way. I would much rather Disney strove to be great rather than settle for the convenient. The one thread I think people can pick out of my musings here is that I’m upset that the company simply doesn’t try its best any more. ‘Emperor’ is okay, but ‘Empire’ could have been brilliant. I did laugh a few times at ‘Emperor’ if that’s any help.

As to which side of the toilet bowl Dreamworks belongs – I don’t care. I want to see good movies. If Disney wishes to try again then I will support them 100%. If good movies come from Dreamworks or Warner Brothers or Fox, then so be it.

It’s too hard to find a movie that’s worth $8.50 these days to limit my selection based just on a brand name.

[Peter Pirate]

AV, I hope you realize that I understand the subtlties of personal preference and this thread was intended to be a catalyst for subjective discussion among friends, nothing more...

I haven't commented on Monsters yet as I haven't seen it. I'd be interested to know why the "potty" humor in it hasn't been an issue, as well.

I agree that for me the movie is what is important (believe it or not). Certainly, I hope for Disney to succeed because I have this irrational feeling for a corporate entity - Maybe a movie in itself, but I too just want quality and I didn't get that feeling from either Shrek or Emperor...But I'm optimistic that better things are just around the corner (for you LandBaron).
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Lesley]

Ya know, I've been waiting for someone to mention that Shrek just wasn't that great! Honestly, I wanted to really like this movie. Heck, I bought it on DVD before ever seeing it assuming that we'd love it because I heard so many people say how funny it was. I should have rented it first! It was an okay movie....the idea behind it was nice, but the animation did nothing for me, there weren't that many really funny parts, and well, I just can't see myself watching it again. I sure hope my kids like it more than me so it gets some use. And bathroom humor doesn't bother me in the least....I can't say it swayed me one way or the other. I do think it was better than Hercules (what were they thinking? that movie was terrible!) and about as good as Tarzan...okay, entertaining, but not going to see a lot of repeat play in our house (and yes, our Tarzan dvd is also collecting dust)

I am also suprised that the Emperor's New Groove doesn't have more fans. This was a movie I wasn't expecting to like a whole lot, and it surprised me. It was very funny. Of course I think Kronk stole the show! I'm curious about "Empire in the Sun".....was this what Emperor was supposed to be?

Now, Monsters had me worried. I was hoping I'd like it. I was hoping it would be great. But I'll admit I wasn't too sure about either. But, well, I think this is just about the best animated movie I've seen since....oh, maybe Alladdin? I mean, I really love this one and I wish I could see it again soon. But alas, I just don't have enough free time without my toddler (who sounds and acts quite a bit like Boo, but bears no resemblance otherwise). If I get any before Christmas I do want to see Harry Potter....if the screen version is as good as the audio book (if you have not listened to these....they are better than reading it! Jim Dale does such a great job with the reading!) it will be fantastic.

[SPAGo 98]

I've never seen Shrek, but I don't plan to. I know I won't like it. When I don't think I'll like something, I'm usually right.

But I LOVED the Emperor's New Groove. It was so hilarious! :D :D

[Planogirl]

There's something here that I just don't understand. I sense a current of disliking ANYTHING put out by a studio not run by the little tyrant coming from some people. Notice that I said SOME people not all. This is actually a lot more pervasive on other boards than here.

I feel real excited when another studio does something well because I think that this will hopefully motivate Disney to do better. I KNOW that Disney is capable of far better output than Atlantis and forgive me, Emperor's New Groove too. I would personally love to see another Lion King or even just a Tarzan come out of that studio again. Shrek being a good movie can only help that process along IMO.

I must admit that I am one of the ignorant people who truly enjoyed Shrek, twice in fact. So did my son and I've happily purchased the video. I personally thought that the potty humor was a minor part of the movie but used just for a silly bit of fun and also to set up the ogre character. After all, how should an ogre behave anyway? I love Monsters Inc. too but do I love it better than Shrek? Yes, but not as much more as I would have thought a year ago.

Also, keep in mind that most of the movie-going public probably isn't as interested in who made the movie as we are. They just want to spend an enjoyable few hours watching something different. I want that too but I want it to be Disney more often!

[Tiger926]

My DH and I loved Shrek! I am a high school English teacher and my class is in the middle of a study of children's literature, with an emphasis on Fairy Tales. Shrek fits in quite nicely because it is satirical in nature, but it also has a message woven throughout just like the fairy tales that it is satirizing. We thought that the animation was very good - did you all see the pores on Shrek's nose? As far as bathroom humour and sexual references, have any of you seen any Disney movies lately? My students just finished an in depth study of Disney literature, and you wouldn't believe the stuff that they found - gender bias, sexual references, violence, etc... But what most of them did not realize is that Disney has adapted many of their stories from the Grimm's Fairy Tales as well as Hans Christian Andersen and these stories are full of violence. For the original versions of Disney stories such as Toy Story, they only found a few small inappropriate jokes that kids would not understand. All of this being said, I absolutely love Disney, but I also enjoy many other animated movies as well (by the way, what's wrong with The Road to El Dorado?), but I have found that for the most part, many Disney movies can be enjoyed by younger audiences, while Dreamworks seems to be marketing to an older audience. Although I must say, most of the kids I know do not enjoy The Emperor's New Groove because the jokes in this movie are directed towards adults as well.

Very interesting thread. It's great to see so many different opinions about the same topic.
Tiger :jester:

[Peter Pirate]

After Shrek & Emperor, I too, am a little worried about liking Monsters. That said I did like Toy Story pretty well, although it certainly was not my favorite and I thought TS2 was much better (odd)...

I want to reiterate that I don't mind the bathroom humor (not offensive), I just think this movie (Shrek) relied on it too much. I know an ogre isn't supposed to be aestetichically likable, but I never knew they farted - So why did they go there? And worse why was it so pervasive for the first hour?

The love story was ok...Good even, and Shrek & the Princess had their moments...But I maintain that Eddie Murphy was a 'been there, done that' at best.

I'm starting to wonder about the emphasis on new technology especially in lieu of a great story. Dinosaur was beautiful and they obviously went to great measures for that 'special effect', but without a great story how many of us really care...Same with Shrek (IMO) perhaps. Maybe I noticed the technology aspects more than I should have because I was so bored for the first hour.

Planogirl, please remember my "ignorant people" comment, which I'm sensing was a mistake, was only a conversation generator.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[johare]

There's something here that I just don't understand. I sense a current of disliking ANYTHING put out by a studio not run by the little tyrant coming from some people. This shouldn't be harder to understand than people liking ANYTHING Disney puts out regardless of quality. I saw some people on these boards actually raving that Atlantis was the movie of the summer and that everyone should rush right out and see it. The same poster hated Shrek (and probably anything non-Disney).

btw: I loved Shrek, liked Monsters, thought New Groove was OK and hated Atlantis! :)

[Peter Pirate]

btw, I loved Shrek, liked Monsters, thought New Groove was ok and hated Atlantis.
We haven't really discussed Atlantis a lot. I haven't seen it (remember I live in a small town) but I remember thinking the ads looked good. Obviously it couldn't have been great, so where did it drop the ball? Was the storyline lame? Was the animation bad? What made it worse than comparables?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[johare]

I want to reiterate that I don't mind the bathroom humor (not offensive), I just think this movie (Shrek) relied on it too much. I know an ogre isn't supposed to be aestetichically likable, but I never knew they farted - So why did they go there? What did you think they did...just fill up with gas until they exploded? :) I think they 'went there' because it seems to get a laugh out of about 90% of the population. Same with monsters...did we need to see Boo jumping up and down grabbing at her crotch in order to realize that kids have to pee? Did Mike need to take a shot in the groin to let us know that that's painful even for a little one-eyed green monster?
But I maintain that Eddie Murphy was a 'been there, done that' at best. ...and where does that leave Billy Crystal?!?

[Planogirl]

I took no offense Peter Pirate but I do enjoy poking a little fun at comments like those. Maybe I should have added a well placed ;) .

[Peter Pirate]

I thought as much Planogirl, I would think by now that my more obvious audacity would be transparent, but hey, we're talking about "ignorant people", right?;) ;) ;) - Lots of winks for that one (it's just a joke, my friends!!! Oh, when will I learn???).:D :D :D

johare, I haven't seen Monsters so if Billy Crystal is "old" then ok. But IMO, Eddie Murphy hasn't been funny for 20 years and his role basically reprises Mushu. If you think its funny thats totally ok with me. My favorite movie is Young Frankenstein and I know that doesn't float very many boats!

As fot Atlantis???
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[DisDuck]

Now for the Duck..(and his 16 yo daughter).

She liked Shrek and wants to buy the DVD but liked Atlantis better. Thought the storyline was better. Laughed at New Groove and we bought it. Thought it was a nice change of pace from the musicals. As for musicals, she loves all the disney ones including Tarzan, has the CD's for them and sings the songs quite often. Very enjoyable to listen to but then again I am a biased father (however, somewhat objective since she sings in a regular chorus, a chamber choir and a show choir).

Now for me.. I like Shrek but was wowed by the animation in Atlantis and liked the characters much better than those in Shrek. I thought the pace of the movie was a little too fast. It seemed to be over when it just got started. New Groove was a laugh riot. Kronk was a real scene stealer. As for Tarzan and Hercules, each to their own taste. I liked both.

We have not yet seen Monsters, hope to go this weekend. Was in California the first week of November so missed out seeing it so far. But it looks good.

Not every Disney animation is great nor do I believe that all you need is the Disney name. But in most cases even the weakest Disney is better than other's best. Just IMHO.

[johare]

johare, I haven't seen Monsters so if Billy Crystal is "old" then ok. But IMO, Eddie Murphy hasn't been funny for 20 years and his role basically reprises Mushu. If you think its funny thats totally ok with me. My favorite movie is Young Frankenstein and I know that doesn't float very many boats! Billy Crystal is pretty much from the same generation as Eddie Murphy. I've always found Billy Crystal to be very annoying and like most of Eddy Murphy's work. btw: I can honestly say I've never seen Young Frankenstein...maybe I should check it out? :) Come to think of it, I've never seen Mulan either?!?

[johare]

As for musicals, she loves all the disney ones including Tarzan, has the CD's for them and sings the songs quite often. Very enjoyable to listen to but then again I am a biased father (however, somewhat objective since she sings in a regular chorus, a chamber choir and a show choir). One of our biggest complaints about Monsters is the lack of music. There is not a single song or note of music throughout the entire movie. Shrek on the other hand had a great soundtrack.

[All Aboard]

If the Dreamworks crew asked Murphy to "do Mushu" then they got their request. Donkey talks to himself frequently (like Mushu) searches for pitty (like Mushu) and goes over the top often (LM). There is very little to distinguish the approaches that Eddie took for the two characters. But, there's nothing really wrong with that, it works.

As for Crystal. It's awfully hard to call it "been there done that" when it's his first animated voice over.

[HBK]

Of course I think Kronk stole the show! I'm curious about "Empire in the Sun".....was this what Emperor was supposed to be?

Since I didn't see anyone else answer this....yes Emperor was supposed to be a dramatic Animated Flick called "Empire in the Sun". The story & the work was supposed to rival Lion King....but the time & budget ran out. The director quit / was forced out, and then Mark Dindral and another were brought in. The uprooted the original story, and made a cute, funny little toon out of it. I loved emperor but I also wonder what the Empire would have looked like.....AV care to enlighten us about what you know? I read the Hill series on it, but I'd love your opinion / insights.

It also baffles me that Emporer was basically ignored by Disney. If they were in such a hurry to release it, why not advertise it? If they weren't behind it 100%, why rush it and ruin what might have been? Mind Boggling.

We haven't really discussed Atlantis a lot. I haven't seen it (remember I live in a small town) but I remember thinking the ads looked good. Obviously it couldn't have been great, so where did it drop the ball? Was the storyline lame? Was the animation bad? What made it worse than comparables?

I saw Shrek, then a week or two later I saw Atlantis. I remember walking out of the theater with my then fiancee (Now Wife) and saying "Shrek and that movie's box offices should have been switched". I said this because I was blown away by the animation. I really liked it. But as I started to dwell on the story, I realized why Shrek was where it was, and Atlantis was where it fell.

My main problem was the story had ZERO time to develop. The found Atantis on the first stab. No failures. Just poped right into the cavern where it was. This is the same Atlantis people have been searching THOUSANDS of years to find...and BAM! There it is. Once the found Atlantis, a civilization lost to humans for THOUSANDS of years, and all of a sudden, Milo is speaking fluent Atlantian. And they speak english? Where did they learn English? Once Milo hits the city, the female heroin (her name escapes me) shows him their vehicles....the ones she's been trying THOUSANDS of years to start, and all Milo does is press a "button" and the thing starts.....the final "fight" scene is anti-climatic and the whole story just left me wondering what I watched. Everything was handed to Milo. He wasn't shown dealing with any failure or adversity. I think if they built the story correctly and combined it with the wonderful animation, they could have had a HUGE HIT....but they didn't. Disney really should have released Monsters in Atlantis' spot. There were NO family films relased during the summer (part of the reason in my opinion that Shrek lasted as long as it did)....and they could have double dipped into the profit well by releasing the DVD to Christmas shoppers.....and they could have kept a much better recieved movie from the Harry Potter juggernaught.


P.S. Shrek has really grown on me after watching it a million times with my son. I didn't think it was much after walking out of the theater. I thought it was OK....but nothing great. But let me tell you I missed a ton of the little things.....which I've picked up watching the DVD. And the Shrek Kareokee bit was HILARIOUS.

As for Tarzan and Hercules, each to their own taste. I liked both.

I don't believe I'm agreeing with Duck, but I LOVED both movies as well. I thought the story was solid in Herc....I loved the scene when he was singing and looking into the rising son....maybe it's me.

I loved Tarzan for a variety of reasons (mostly personal meanings), but the main one was the way the story was told and intertwined with Music. Characters didn't just start breaking into song.....but the songs were in my eyes a continuation of the storyline. Absolutly wonderfull movie. I hope more are made with the Tarzan formula.

But I maintain that Eddie Murphy was a 'been there, done that' at best

To each his own I guess. I really loved the Donkey. The times he broke into song was hilarious...and I could picture Murphy speaking the lines by looking at the donkey's facial expressions.....lots of priceless humor.

...and where does that leave Billy Crystal?!?

Again, I personally think Mike Wisowski stole the show in Monsters. He was hilarious and I think a good part of that was Billy Crystal's voice helping that along.

[johare]

As for Crystal. It's awfully hard to call it "been there done that" when it's his first animated voice over.Actually I wasn't refering to voice overs. I was refering to the fact that both actors seem to be past their prime. I still find Eddie Murphy to be funny though. Sounds like I'm going to have to go rent Mulan. When it came out my wife tooks the kids to see it while I was at work and I've never gotten around to seeing it.

[johare]

I saw Shrek, then a week or two later I saw Atlantis. I remember walking out of the theater with my then fiancee and saying "Shrek and that movie's box offices should have been switched". I said this because I was blown away by the animation. I really liked it. But as I started to dwell on the story, I realized why Shrek was where it was, and Atlantis was where it fellI just don't get this. We thought the animation in Atlantis was very poor. Had some neet 'digital effects', but the basic animation wasn't even up to Disney's usual quality levels.
I don't believe I'm agreeing with Duck, but I LOVED both movies as well. I thought the story was solid in Herc....I loved the scene when he was singing and looking into the rising son....maybe it's me. I don't believe this either...I really liked both of those movies as well. Other than Toy Story 1 & 2, Tarzan is the only Disney animated film which I own on DVD (so far). We also really loved Hercules.
To each his own I guess. I really loved the Donkey. The times he broke into song was hilarious...and I could picture Murphy speaking the lines by looking at the donkey's facial expressions.....lots of priceless humor. Donkey was great! I don't think the movie would have been the same without him.
Again, I personally think Mike Wisowski stole the show in Monsters. He was hilarious and I think a good part of that was Billy Crystal's voice helping that along.Back to disagreeing here. Mike was funny at times, but mostly annoying. For a favorite character I'd have a hard time choosing between Boo and Sulley, though Sulley definately had the better voice acting! :)

[johare]

Well, here's my list.

1. Shrek
2. Monsters
3. Emperor's New Groove
4 thru 997. Any cartoon that happens to be showing on Cartoon Network or Nick.
998. Atlantis
999. Osmosis Jones

:D :D :D

[Patch'sD]

I didn't know that Disney with Mulan invented the wise cracking side kick. Wow now that is something new. Eddie Murphy is a comic genuis, The Nutty Professor and Dr Dollittle Movies were fantastic with him, What has Crystal done lately. I would like to see how Atlantis would have done if it was not Disney Branded. Most likely half of it's Box office take. Shrek was a well done movie with a small amount of "Potty Humor" but a lot of laughs. The Movie was good and we have watched the DVD several times now.

[Peter Pirate]

I didn't know that Disney with Mulan invented the wise cracking sidekick
I don't recall anyone saying they did. I said I had already seen/heard the same routine from Murphy in Mulan...
Shrek was a well done movie with a small amount of "potty" humor
I counted 16 jokes of the low brow genre. Most of them were in the first hour, so that seems rather abundant. Of course your tastes are different than mine and his & hers so it's all subjective & I respect that. I just found little else to go with the "potty" humor in the first hour...Which makes for me, the "well-done" label pretty lenient.
Eddy Murphy is a comic genius
I once liked him (Saturday Night Live), but I find little of what he's done since amusing. But then again this is subjectivity. Somebody out there thinks Pauly Shore is funny.

Man, johare, you really hated Atlantis! But opinions are really varying on this one, as well. Very interesting!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[DVC-Landbaron]

... and refrained from comment. But I can't let it go on!!!I counted 16 jokes of the low brow genre. Now I ask you. With all do respect. What kind of a guy sits in front of a TV, categorizes the content of an animated feature and then 'counts' the number of 'low brow' references?

PETER!!! Get a life!!! ;)

[SPAGo 98]

I didn't care for Eddie Murphy's character in Mulan, but I really liked that movie overall. I don't care for much of Murphy's acting, anyways. As I said, I really loved Emperor. I thought it was great.
With Atlantis... I thought the animation was amazing. There was just very little character development, and the storyline was a bit (read: very) rushed. Reminded me of Dinosaur, in a way. I did not like Dinosaur. There was absolutely NO character development at ALL.

Of course, this is from a guy whose top 10 list includes Hunchback... :D

[Peter Pirate]

Unfair LandBaron! With all of the talk about fart jokes preceding this movie and as slow as I found the first hour to be, I have to wonder how anybody didn't count the jokes???
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[JeffJewell]

Man, johare, you really hated Atlantis! ...johare appears to have enjoyed Atlantis slightly more than I did. No story, no character development, all the cave scenes that looked like they were animated right on top of promo art... Atlantis is the hollowest shell of a movie that I've ever seen (although it's possible that Waterboy was worse; so bad that I might have completely blocked it from my memory: Suzy swears we went to see that thing, but I have no memory of it whatsoever). The best thing that could happen to Atlantis would be for Disney to give it the guys at MST3K.

Emperor's New Groove, on the other hand, was very good despite (or perhaps even because of) its simplicity.

Dinosaur was a technological coup and a story-telling disaster. The saddest part of the whole Dinosaur debacle was that Eisner basically reacted to one poorly performing movie by shutting down the entire department that made it. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's an awfully good chance that those CGI artists could have produced a winner if given the chance (this theory is bolstered somewhat by the number of ex-Dino artisans who later found themselves cashing Shrek checks).

Jeff

[YoHo]

I have yet to see Atlantis, but from what I've heard from some of the Animation/Comic Artist Experts (Sarangel) Atlantis is a triumph. It is an entirely Different Animation style from any other Disney film. Unfortunatly, not many people know this and I can't imagine why anybody not IN to the artistic aspects would care. Still its art and art can be very subjective.

On to Eddie Murphy. Eddie Murphy doesn't belong to Comic MENSA in my opinion. At the same time, I really like his comedy when he's going all out. Mushu AND Donkey were both great even if they were the same. Both are examples of characters that were written so that only Eddie Murphy could voice them.

I like Billy Crystals Standup and I LOVE Fernado's Hideaway. "You Look Marvelous!"

I'm not a big fan of most of his film work.
All that being said, I think he was great as Mike.
Of course, Chevy Chase and Steve Martin are still my favorite Comedic Actors, So I revel in the "tired" and "Washed up." (Still upset that they pulled them plus Martin Short out of MGM to put in (Shudder) Drew Carey)

I agree with the Pirate that the first half of Shrek was a bore. If they cut most of the beginning out, I'd think it was a great movie. I didn't count Low Brow humour instances, mainly, because I was trying to keep from falling asleep. It definatly picks up in the second half.


Oh, and while I don't think it was directed at me, I'll just point out, that my big problem was with sexually suggestive Dialog and behavior NOT low brow humour. This is a problem much more in Road to El Dorado then Shrek.

[All Aboard]

jj, ditto down to just about every word. Except the Mystery Science Theater idea. Isn't there a saying that involves insult and injury?

[johare]

JJ:johare appears to have enjoyed Atlantis slightly more than I did. No story, no character development, all the cave scenes that looked like they were animated right on top of promo art... Atlantis is the hollowest shell of a movie that I've ever seenWell said. Does this mean that you thought Osmosis Jones was better than Atlantis?

Yoho: I have yet to see Atlantis, but from what I've heard from some of the Animation/Comic Artist Experts (Sarangel) Atlantis is a triumph. It is an entirely Different Animation style from any other Disney film. Triumph?!? Drawing the animation cells with crayons held between your toes would be an entirely different animation style, but that wouldn't make it good...or a 'triumph'. I really don't recall ever seeing an animated Disney film worse than Atlantis.

[All Aboard]

I really don't recall ever seeing an animated Disney film worse than Atlantis.Ever see "Oliver & Company"?

[johare]

Ever see "Oliver & Company"?Yep. It's not great but it is still better than Atlantis! :) Maybe if I look hard enough I can find a 'direct-to-video' Disney film which is worse...

[JeffJewell]

Does this mean that you thought Osmosis Jones was better than Atlantis? ...actually, I've never seen Osmosis Jones, so I've got no valid comparison to make. I was thinking more about the Atlantis disembowelings I'd previously refrained from posting when I made my comment, not so much your relative assessment of the two movies.

I must say that you appear to have hated Atlantis for many of the same reasons I did, so if you think O.J. is even _worse_, I can't imagine what might compel me to actually go rent it, at this point.

I'm similarly mystified that Atlantis could be called a "triumph" of animation. I remember discussion before Atlantis appeared that mentioned how hot, happenin', and trendy the Mike Mignola influenced art was going to be, but it certainly didn't seem to have much of effect on those around me (as a comic book geek of no small consequence, myself, I always considered Mignola's greatest artistic gift to be capturing a feeling of motion with a static image. A handy talent when drawings comics, but superfluous, at best, when making animated movies).

Other than the squared-off fingers on the males (which seems to be becoming the mainstream in animation, anyway), I didn't see anything in the character animation that clearly set Atlantis apart from other animated movies, Disney or otherwise.

Jeff

[DVC-Landbaron]

Jeff!! I'm surprised at you!! You said:I'm similarly mystified that Atlantis could be called a "triumph" of animation.Those people that call it a "triumph", are enchanted by the Disney name!! If Dreamworks' name would have been in the credits those same people would have dismissed it for the sub-par drivel it is!

Just a thought! Keep smiling!! :D :D :D :D

[DisDuck]

johare, I believe you might be in the minority as far as the animation itself is concerned. The majority of comments now and when it was originally released was that the particular style being emulated was very good. You may not like that style just like I don't like Japanese Anima(sp.).

It seems to me that just like with Dinosaur Disney was experimenting (pushing the envelope). Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. The original Fantasia failed in its first go around. But nobody condemned the whole of Disney for its experiment.

I give the credit for trying something different.

[Peter Pirate]

Perhaps I'm "those people"...After all, I sat around and counted fart jokes!:D

I agree that if we base success on commercial results only, we end up with hyped commercialism & no risk or attempt to find something new or tell a better story. As I recall, this is AV's biggest beef with Disney's current management. But, Just because I like Disney offerings better doesn't mean I'm only viewing with blinders...Perhaps this is what I actually like...Perhaps because I don't have a huge negative view of the CEO I can still appreciate things that Disney do properly...

Movies are simply entertainment and I genuinely hope that every movie I see will be good, regardless of who made it, because if it's lousy, I've just wasted my money.

Scoop's post brings me to something else...What do we (in general) see as the true classics. For me the most recent are Beauty, Mermaid & Aladdin. I liked LK & TS (especially TS2)and even though they made much more money I do not think they were the superior films...
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[YoHo]

Disduck you hit right on what I was trying to say.

Again, I haven't seen the movie so i don't have an opinion of my own on the story or the Animation style. Of course I'm generally forgiving of all movies, not just Disney ones, so when I do see it, I may like it.


Personally, Part of me still has a hard time pinning the label classic on even the Katzenberg stuff. Cinderella is a classic. BUT, if you want to tie me down and force something out of me, my personal favorite of the current crop is Aladdin followed by Mulan. I don't watch beauty and the Beast very often and Ariel annoys me. (I don't like teenagers. I was a whiny self absorbed idiot as a teenager too and I hate my old self. :)) Lion King follows closely. I really like it, but its not as good as Aladdin

Also, since we were previously discussing animation styles, I'm going to stop right here and tell you all that I can't stand the Animation in Little Mermaid-Aladdin. I thought the human form was drawn too cartoonish compared to the Walt era stuff AND the female form was even more idealized (? or exaggerated?) then in the Walt Classics. In Pocahontas they got away from that a little and in Mulan it was non existant.

[JeffJewell]

I keep reading the allusions but I don't know who around here blindly says its good because Disney is on the label. ...what, you think a few locked threads will keep me from naming names? ;)

When I refer to "those people," I'm usually talking mostly about yourself and Captain Pirate (Jeff Handshaw, too, but I haven't noticed him around much lately). It's threads like the "Question for AV..." thread where you attempted to offer evidence that Disney hotel staffs were clearly and demonstrably superior to the staffs of non-Disney hotels, or the Captain's vitriol towards the non-Disney Dreamworks in this thread, that lead me to that conclusion.

It's quotes like: "Shrek two is bound to be a disappointment" (Captain Crook) and "that intangible which makes Disney unlike any other company in the world is the special unique quality of its CMs" (thedscoop) that fail to deliniate any objectively observable difference between Disney and non-Disney, only the conviction that Disney is superior and others are inferior, that lead me to the conclusion that Car #1's windshield is, in fact, rose colored.

I've pretty much given up on trying to objectively define Disney Magic in such a way that we can all agree on it; I now have my own definition based on objective measures, and I'm happy enough with that. Greg might not _agree_ with me that lacking immersive theming automatically relegates the All-Stars to "less than Disney Magic" status, but I'll pretty much guarantee that he understands what I mean with that definition. I think he'd likely be able to accurately guess my estimation of the "Disney Magic" inherent in new projects based on the reasons I've given for my previous judgements.I don't know who around here blindly says its good because Disney is on the label As far as I could ascertain, you said precisely that in the hotel staff thread. Even your own example of the Yankees having "something about them" should be a tip-off: not everyone feels there is anything special at all about the Yankees (except they seem to have more to spend on players).

I can't predict your "Magic assessment" based on your explanations of your prior assessments here: they appear to be mostly based on your memories, not on any measurable characteristic. And I think your memories are biased hugely in Disney's favor (the weird part is, _my_ memories are also biased hugely in Disney's favor. We took the same input, ran it through the same bias, and came out on opposite ends of the spectrum).

I understand that every single second of your life during which you've been exposed to something Disney has been a simple slice of heaven for you. That's cool. But failing to acknowledge how much of that "Magic" is contained in thedscoop's grey matter, and not in anything Disney is doing differently from other companies, is disappointing, and it limits what topics we can usefully discuss here.

Jeff

[Another Voice]

Unlike our good friend the Pirate, some of us are forced to watch movies and this morning’s offering from the mouse was a particular little gem. I wish I were out cold so that I would be spared the horrors of flashbacks and the mourning for my numerous brain cells this film brutally murdered. It almost makes me want to see ‘Atlantis’ again…

Unfortunately this thread seems have fallen victim to the usual “I liked it therefore it was good” vs. “I didn’t like it therefore it was bad” argument that most discussions about movies fall into. Judging movies is always hard because there is no set formula to get “right” or “wrong”. I find that Mr. Pirate’s comments about WHY he didn’t like ‘Shrek’ (not his style of humor, uninteresting first half) and the problems with the story structure of ‘Atlantis’ are far more enlightening than declarations about which film is or is not a “triumph”.

The box office results are a poor way to judge a movie’s “greatness”, but it’s the best general gage we have. A film doesn’t earn a half billion dollars at the box office unless a whole lot of people want to see it. Of course, a lot of good movies don’t make a lot of money, and a lot of rotten movies can be driven to large returns through the power of modern marketing. Still, even its detractors must admit that ‘Shrek’ had something about it that ‘Atlantis’ lacked, and that factor made many more people go watch the green guy pass gas rather than the wimpy nerd go skinny dipping with Malibu Barbie.

Simply pandering for big box office almost never results in a good movie – just look at the long, long string of movies from this summer’s season. The great hope of most people in the industry (okay, some people in the industry) is to make a movie that is good, so good that it finds a wide audience.


* - an obscure reference to honor Mr. Pirate on his excellent choice of favorite movie. And sir, given that Hollywood has joined the war effort (don’t get me started…) – I think we can arrange for a crack unit to land on the beaches near your home and establish an emergency movie theater. I think that ‘Monsters’ will work better for you on a wide screen and with an audience.

Where did this "classic" thread come from. I'll have to respond to that and 'Empire of the Sun' later.

[Peter Pirate]

AV, you are right that the "it's good because I like it" type comments lead to no discussion at all & neither does the denegration of the 'other side' that happens occasionally, but at least we covered some interesting ground this time.

We'll be looking for your insight on what "Emperor" was to be & comments on the classics (hopefully) in the near future.

I'm thrilled you like my choice as "favorite movie", I will keep my batting average in check and not mention my next fave!;)

Oh, and if you can materialize a MHMT (mobile Hollywood movie theatre) here on my beach, then you're all invited to a Keys screening...No shoes or shirts allowed!
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Another Voice]

Sorry all - another long one.

The only way to really see which movie will be a “classic” is to wait fifty years. I think any film that can be enjoyed by an entirely different generation deserves that title. It means that the film transcends the mundane and temporary issues of its time and really talks about the human condition. And fifty years isn’t all that long when you consider that Shakespeare is several centuries old, the plays of Rome and Greece are in the thousands of years and fables and myths go back before even writing.

But since we don’t have the time to wait until the middle of this century to figure out what’s going to still be around, we can guess. So here in descending order is the Fearless Predications from The Dark Side. You’re all invited to come back in fifty years to flame this post…

I think that the one modern Disney animated film to definitely make “classic” status will be ‘Beauty and The Beast’. I think it is by far the best-made film of the lot in terms of story, characters, pacing and music. Everything in the film works together, although I want to see if the new ‘Human Again’ segment hurts more than it helps. It also has the strongest themes or “morals”; ones that will be as true five hundred years from now as well as fifty years (I suppose this is the wrong place to go into a deep analysis).

‘The Hunchback of Notre Dame’ will be considered a near miss. It has all the elements except for a strong enough script and because of that the film simply never comes together. I think critics will view this one more favorably as the years pass just because of its individual components, but it won’t be popular. Instead of spending the money to make an IMAX version of ‘The Lion King’, I’d spend the money to straighten out this film and turn it into the classic it should have been (hint, loose the goat and the stone guys).

‘The Little Mermaid’ will have some shelf life because the movie is so well put together. The music and its characters are its strengths, but the “there’s more to life than marriage” theme was out-of-date even when the movie was first released. Then again after watching the news coverage coming from certain parts of this planet, maybe a story about independence and right to decide one’s own fate still needs to spread after all.

I would put ‘The Lion King’ next. It has a strong story and a strong theme, but the music is beginning to date already (when was the last time you heard ‘Can You Feel The Love Tonight’ outside of a wedding reception?) and the disconnect between the plot and the musical numbers weakens the movie overall. In a funny way, I think the stage play will actually outlive the movie because the play works so much better.

Of those in the “runner up and don’t have a chance” category, I’d put ‘Tarzan’ first because it could have been an outstanding film. The problem was the filmmakers lacked the confidence to really pull it off. It has some incredible animation and imagery and the one of the best modern-era themes (the nature of family and belonging), but far too many “cute” elements were in there just to be cute (and to hype the plush sales) and the film’s thin story completely falls apart the moment the guns get pulled out. One more pass through the screenwriting software and this could have ranked just below ‘Beauty’.

‘Aladdin’ will be hurt – of all things – by Robin Williams’ performance. A lot of jokes already go over the heads of people who can’t remember the first George Bush we had as president and it’s only going to get worse over time. A good film, but it’s kind of like watching a film of a Will Rodgers comedy routine – I knows it’s funny but just I don’t get the in-jokes about Roosevelt’s New Deal plan. The others: ‘Mulan’, ‘Pocahontas’, ‘Hercules’, ‘Oliver and Company’, ‘Emperor’s New Groove’, et al have already faded from the public’s memory. Lastly, people are far more likely to have fond memories of Jar Jar Binks than they will have of any of the direct-to-video sequels.

Lastly for ‘Shrek’, as much as I like the film I’d put it in the “not a chance” category. The film’s story is timeless, but its presentation is aimed solely for this generation and for these times. Besides the topical references, I don’t think (and I fervently hope) that future viewers won’t have such a jaded view of human nature and of films. ‘Shrek’ works now which is why the film was so popular, but it won’t work ten years from now.

For a really good insight to Hollywood at the moment, the LA Times ran an excellent column today about Franchise Movies. It explains everything you need to know about ‘Harry Potter’ and why all the summer movies have numbers after their titles. The article is on-line at: http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Movies-X!ArticleDetail-47216,00.html.

Mr. Pirate, let me head done the coast a bit and rig up one of the Marine LCATs from Camp Pendleton. Your movie will be on the way.

[YoHo]

Hey AV, the link went dead.

I'm sad that you think Aladdin will do so poorly, but can't help but agree with your logic.

[Peter Pirate]

I too agree with the logic on Aladdin...But I'm wondering that if the fast pace of this particular movie & the Genie's quick delivery & peppy repartie might not be enough to carry it through the irrelevencies of the actual words...After all, the kids of the "Aladdin generation" didn't understand most of the references either...

Otherwise, I can agree with AV's list (at least we agree on Beauty wholeheartedly). I'm not convinced that it's the soundtrack that's dating LK, but since that's been tossed out it is giving me pause.

Lastly, what about Disney/Pixar? TS & TS2 particularily were huge financially. Do they have staying power?
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[Lesley]

A very good analysis AV....though I agree a bit with Peter Pirate that just maybe Aladdin will make it through on its other qualities. I think you're absolutely right on with Beauty and the Beast. It's one of the few Disney movies in the last 2 decades that is truly timeless.

I also would like to hear your take on the Disney/Pixar movies....part of me is thinking that the story concept of Toy Story (and TS2) is timeless....but perhaps that depends on where the world goes from here? I think its a story that kids could have related to in my mother's generation (except for maybe Pizza Planet...and I'd bet that many of you here are members of my mother's generation, born in the 50's, so I'll wait to hear your opinions)

I don't think the music in TLK was particularly trendy...not like in Tarzan (but perhaps my dislike of Rosie O'Donnell is coloring my opinion here....I just find her annoying...to make Tarzan a great movie get rid of her, the elephant, and that stupid Trashin the Camp segment...ugh!). But I suppose only time will tell. I think the fact that "Can you feel the love tonight" is still being used at weddings is actually a good sign....though I suppose there were songs in the 70's that were used at weddings for ages that would seen extremely dated now too. My own wedding music was Metallica and Red Hot Chili Peppers....and I'll admit those choices seem a bit old 10 years later (not that I don't still like them). Oh, well, what was my point again?

Something just hit me after reading through AV's post once again.....perhaps they're continually trying to hit too many marks with the recent movies....like "serious storyline" and "cute" at the same time. When you point out that what Hunchback needs is to lose the goat and the gargoyles, and that Tarzan has too many "cute" elements....those were really pretty serious stories and they totally missed the mark on trying to provide some comic relief. Tarzan would have done fine with stuff like the scene where he first meets Jane and is "investigating" her....it was sweet, funny, and really had a point in the story. I've already stated my opinion on Rosie O'Donnell (am I the only one?).

[All Aboard]

I appreciate the analysis AV, but I've got to disagree with you on Hunchback. The "stone guys" serve a very important purpose to me in the film. Quasi has spent 20 years in near isolation in the bell tower. He has no one to talk to but himself. Clearly Laverne, Victor and Hugo are only real in his imagination. Without them, there isn't anyone in the film (other than Quasi) who really knows how he feels, what he thinks, what he believes in. They are vital, in my opinion.

Like B&tB, I feel the music in HoND clearly tells the story. The Bells of Notre Dame, Out There, Hellfire, Heaven's Light are all great story-telling musical pieces. Of all the Post-Oliver & Company Disney Animated Features, HoND is by far my favorite.

[SPAGo 98]

I love the music to Hunchback. God Help the Outcasts is possibly the best song since ... well, yeah. It's great!! The Bells of Notre Dame...wow. :cool:

The stone guys were necessary, I think. Djali was cute, but I could go either way on him. he ddin't detract from the story, but he didn't add much either.

[Another Voice]

Great comments from everyone; this thread seems to have started a lot of interesting conversations.

There has been a trend recently to put in a lot of “zany” sidekicks into the animated films recently with only limited success. In the rush to hype toy sales and the generate media-friendly clips, people have forgotten about basic story structure. Movies have a very limited amount of time to tell their story and everything that doesn’t push the story along ends up slowing everything down. It’s not enough for the sidekick just to be funny; they have to illustrate aspects of the main character’s story.

If you look at a classic like ‘Bambi’, the story is all about growing up. Thumper is the wide-eyed, mischievous side of the childhood that Bambi’s going through. At the end of the film, after everyone falls in love, it’s Thumper that shows up with all his kids and highlights the logical extension of what Bambi has grown into. By using a secondary character to explore to extreme aspects of the central character’s situation, you allow the audience to get a greater understanding of the main character.

The problem with the gargoyles and Rossie’s gorilla (beside from Rossie herself) is that these characters didn’t serve that role and then weakened their movies. There was nothing wrong with having the characters in the film, but they weren’t written correctly and they ended up hurting the films. Comedy can be great in movies, but it can’t just stop the story.

My concern with ‘The Lion King’ isn’t it’s music per se, it’s just that movies with those kinds of “stop the story, it’s time for a production number” structures don’t tend to age well. Try to watch one of the 1930’s “all singing, all dancing” musicals that show up on the Turner Classic Movie channel and you’ll see why. Unless the music is a part of the story, those films seem like a collection of music videos with acting in between. As musical tastes change, the appeal of the music moments will go up and down.

I’m not sure about ‘Toy Story’. I think those two films are going to be seen more as historical pieces rather than as movies – just like ‘The Jazz Signer’ and ‘How the West Was Won’ are today. A lot of aspects about the TS movies are timeless, but I’ve always felt that there’s a strong Baby Boomer angle about them that isn’t going to be meaningful twenty years from now. Basically the theme of the movies is Baby Boomers (as represented by Woody and all the old toys) in conflict with those upstart Gen Xers (Buzz and the computerized toys). These movies are going to be granting PHd’s on film historians and social analysts for generations to come; but I don’t know what kind of audience they are going to have. Plus in the future, everyone’s toys will really talk and move on their own so the “secret life of toys” might not seem so magical as it does right now.

By the way – “my mother’s generation”? Ouch.

[Lesley]

As much as I like the music in Hunchback, I think it may be part of the reason the movie didn't have a lot of popular appeal....it wasn't really "accessible" to your average movie-goer....you can't sing along, kwim? That said I think the music was perfect for what the movie could have been.

I don't think the gargoyles are really necessary....but the role they play is needed, as far as giving a way to show Quasimodo's thoughts and feelings. It could have been done through the figures Quasimodo carves, etc...

But why is it that the "cute" elements in B&B work, and those in HoND and Tarzan don't? Could it be there's an inherent element of fantasy and whimsy in the storyline of B&B, where there isn't such a thing in either of the other movies?

[Lesley]

"By the way – “my mother’s generation”? Ouch."

Sorry! My mom is quite young, though.....but still it is a different generation. And, well, I totally didn't get all the baby boomers vs. gen. x stuff from TS.....funny, I just don't relate that way to the world. But I can see that its there now that you point it out....and I did enjoy the movie regardless (several hundred times by now...one of my ds's favorites).

And what fun are toys that play by themselves? :)

[Peter Pirate]

I think the comercialism is a very interesting point in this discussion. Disney has always made their movies to be commercially accepted...As long as it met the other required criteria (story, moral theme, etc.), and Disney has been masterful at this promotion thorughout most of the Eisner years - although they are perhaps the years when other voices lent their respected thoughts to Eisner. Since Eisner has ascended to the one man show, it does seem obvious that his thought process may now be muddled and without respectful interaction he keeps making bad decisions (two heads are better than one).

I have no problem with Disney trying to tie in commercialism, the McDonalds sales, the funny characters, etc., but I agree they MUST be adding positive lean to the film, otherwise its just fluff that confuses and muddies the main issues.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[raidermatt]

I think there maybe a little too much analytical thinking going on here (and it does hurt me to say that...). IMHO, the most important element any family movie must have to become a classic is the ability to get to the audience's emotions. Certainly the "princess/maid must get her prince to be happy" theme has been outdated for a long time. Yet, Snow White, Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty remain classics. The Little Mermaid succeeded despite having this at its core long after it was really acceptable.

These films succeeded because of their ability to reach us emotionally. There is no formula for this. If there truly were, the movie-makers would never miss.

The "lets stop for a musical number" approach has been gone for decades, outside of animated films. It was virtually non-existent in the 80's and 90's. The only late 70's movie that comes to mind that succeeded was Grease. Yet, Grease remains a "classic" movie today and is extremely popular. The LM and LK used this format well after it was dead in film, yet they succeeded. Also, LK really only has two of these scenes (Just Can't Wait, Hakuna), and LM has only three (Under, Part, Kiss), and they all serve a purpose and don't seem to be thrown in just to get a song. Hakuna in particular does an excellent job of lightening the mood after the very serious stampede scene.

The other elements mentioned, such as the comic relief characters being part of the story, and using dated jokes are important, but are only contributing factors and can be over come (the latter moreso than the former).

I believe LK will endure because of the emotions it makes us feel. How can anyone not be moved after the stampede scene? Simba is taken advatage of by pure evil, but makes a triumphant and stirring return. Can you feel the love is already dated, but Hakuna and Just Can't Wait are catchy tunes that children will always love. Circle of Life is one of the most stirring songs ever heard in a Disney film.

To a lesser extent, Mermaid does the same. B&tB will also endure, as others have noted.

I agree Tarzan is probably a near miss, but may hold-up better than we think. The loss of Tarzan's parents and Kala's son put us emotionally in their corner from the beginning. I don't like Rosie, but I didn't have a problem with Turk, or the elephant. I do agree that the Stompin' the Camp scene seems out of place and takes away from the story.

I'll stop now...

[Blondie]

We loved Shrek. No, it's not a movie that will be passed down through generations, but I don't think it was aiming to be one either.

[airlarry!]

Hey, AV, you didn't happen to have seen B&B in the pre-theatrical release, now did you? A hunch....


Anyway, my list is exactly AV's: "B&B", "Hunchback," and "Tarzan," and "Little Mermaid," all classics IMHO. Strong story, strong visual, I think in all four the musical segments do move the story along rather than stop the action.

I have always argued with my friends that "Lion King" was one of the weaker Disney movies, a sort of "Titanic" of the animated feature realm. Thin story, not the best songs, but two memorable wisecracking sidekicks got people to go over and over and over....Remember, Timon & Pumbaa got their own show, not Nala & Simba.

But, I also like what Scoop says. There is a *classic* and then there is a *cult classic*. In that vein, I think "Emperor" fits. It was funny...if you liked Seinfield and Puddy and Spade and Letterman kind of humor. If you don't like that kind, then this movie probably misses the mark. To each his own, I say...

Atlantis is tougher. How certain people on this board can say "well if it had Disney on it, then the mouse-colored glass wearers love it, and hate it if it doesn't..." is beyond me. I'm a car #3 guy, who hated Dinosaur, but that doesn't mean I will dismiss Atlantis is drivel. I'm not nitpicking with you AV, but it seems to me that "Atlantis" was the kind of movie that you walk out not hating, but instead scratching your chin saying: "Man, that movie was.....almost...good." Me and my wife walked out of the theater saying that it was so close to being a good movie but something was missing. Something we couldn't put our finger down on. AFter reading the posts here, I think it was the story...it was presented not in the "Lady & the Tramp" type of suspend your disbelief, it was instead presented as 'serious' science fiction, or maybe like and INdy Jones movie, and then preceded to totally hammer the plot through in 80 minutes. Imagine if Spielberg knocks off 60 minutes from "Raiders" and see if that was a good movie...I doubt it.

OK. Enough rambling. Atlantis was visually stunning, but emotionally lacking. Big crime for a Disney branded movie. In fact, it was more like a non-Disney movie than any recent Disney movies. At least Pocohantas, Hercules, Mulan had heart and emotion.

[Planogirl]

I would like to go on record as saying that The Lion King will also be an enduring classic. I think that the music was excellent but since that's just a matter of opinion, I won't go on and on about that. The Lion King offers great characters including the all-important hero, comedy characters and a likable villain. The movie has many emotional scenes which keeps a viewer's interest. The animation is quite good and the movie appeals strongly to children. It's mostly this appeal to children that will cause the movie to evolve into a classic IMO. Parents will automatically purchase it for their kids who will watch it over and over again just as they do Dumbo and Bambi. I can't see this happening with Hunchback and the Emperor's New Groove.

I guess it really depends on what constitutes a classic. I consider it a movie that stays in the public eye and is appreciated by that public for all time.

[YoHo]

But Scoop, isn't Shrek a Disfunctional Buddy Comedy as well? I totally agree with your take on the Genre of Emperor. it is clearly a buddy comedy. Which is likely why it failed. Usually a movie like Rush Hour is NOT the best Date movie. And the 20 something males that like buddy comedies typically dismiss animation. Toy Story drew a lot of people who hated Disney Animation. Shrek took Toy Story's visual appeal and rapped a buddy comedy around it. it isn't that its better or worse then Emperor. It's technology gave it an in with its target audience.
Its not that its Spade humor. In fact, I don't detect much in Kuzco that reminds me of say, Just Shoot Me, Aside from the voice. Its standard buddy stuff. They also pull off some very believable visual gags.

[perrywinkle]

I loved Shrek. It was a no brainer "let me make you laugh" movie, with lots of subtle humor.
I don't understand why a person whose monikker is "Master of His Domain" would object to potty humor?

[Peter Pirate]

perrywinkle...I have no objection to "potty humor" and I thought I had said that. My objection to Shrek was that, for me, there was nothing much besides "potty humor". We're really in the realm of personal taste here and I myself love a lot of screwy movies (Caddyshack, Animal House, Theres's something About Mary), but there was alwys something underlyng is these films (besides the obvious) that I didn't find in Shrek. To relate it to animation, I loved the subleties of Aladdin (and there were lots) but the basic story was also never lost (and it was a darn good one). Shrek, to me, was an hour of nothing and 40 minutes or so of a nice but basic fairy tale. I liked the Shrek & Princess characters but felt their script was lame.

As for my moniker, my obvious love of Sienfeld should prove that I'm not offended easily and I wasn't offened (at all) by Shrek...I just didn't like it.
:cool: :cool: :bounce: :cool: :cool:

[JustBob]

I guess my only real problem with Emperor is that it seemed to have 3 or 4 places where it sounded like they were heading into a song, and then it would just die. I guess there was a lot left on the cutting room floor. Also, I suppose it could be argued that, had a song started, the forward motion of the plot might have died. I have REALLY enjoyed this thread! (What can I say? I love talking about movie music!):bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[Captain Crook]

My biggest question with regard to "Emperor" is, as was mentioned earlier, why was it promoted so little? I can understand the lack of all out media blitz for a quirky film like this, but wouldn't it have done better with a little support?
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth:

[ContempoSMT]

VERY STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH YOU. Your post makes no sense because shrek was thhe highest grossing animated movie ever, so that goes to show you what people really thought about it. I am a very strong critic of movies but shrek is up there with 4 stars out of 5. so what are you going to tell me next, The GOdfather was a bad movie!

[johare]

Actually I think Lion King still holds the #1 animated film title with over $300M. Shrek I believe is somewhere around $268 million. I guess you could say though that Shrek hold the record for CGI animated films though.

Fortunately after seeing this weekends numbers it looks like Monsters Inc. has dropped below $10M and might have a hard time topping Shreks $268 million. Monsters was great, but we loved Shrek and would like to see it beat Monsters at the box office and win the Oscar next year!!! :D

[d-r]

And tickets cost more today than they did when the LK came out.

FWIW, personally, I think it would be a true shame for Shrek to win the oscar over Monsters Inc. However, I don't think that the total box office (which I think will be higher eventually for Monsters than Shrek; Shrek is still playing in some theaters, Monsters Inc has been out for what, four weeks? I think Monsters will have some more life during Christmas Break, as will Harry) will be the only criteria for the acedemy award. I hope at least.

Personally, I found both the animation and story superior in Monsters Inc, though I'm sure I am just a homer (I do like some non-disney animation though, FWIW I liked Anastasia and I thought Iron Giant was very, very good. I also thought Prince of Egypt was OK as was chicken run, though I prefered a bugs life to ants. And of the two south american buddy travel films, although I preferred the humor of Emporers new groove which I liked a lot, I appreciated the boldness that dreamworks had in exploring gay relationships in road to el dorado. I also enjoyed watching Titon AE, heavy metal, and american pop, though I didn't at all like quest for camelot, feivel, or any land before time).

I guess that having read "the stinky cheese man" and having watched "fractured fairy tales" on rocky and bull winkle as a kid I wasn't that impressed with the Shrek premise, I thought that the animation looked like clay mation and wasn't that impressive, although some of the backgrounds were wonderful, and, though I found the ending sweet, the potty humor combined with the disney bashing left a smart ellecky bad taste in my mouth (and I should tell you that I liked it A LOT more than my wife did). Monsters Inc, on the other hand, dragged a bit in the middle, but I found the story more interesting, the characters more compelling, and the animation more impressive.
DR

[johare]

And tickets cost more today than they did when the LK came out. So that means that more people actually went to see Shrek then. Perhaps they should record attendence figures for movies along with the dollar totals. It would be more meaningful.

FWIW, personally, I think it would be a true shame for Shrek to win the oscar over Monsters IncFWIW, I think it would be a true shame for Monsters to win the oscar over Shrek! I thought the animation in Shrek was fantastic. The characters had a very realistic appearance to them and moved very naturally. It almost seemed like you could believe that they really existed somewhere. Monsters on the other hand was good, but the animation had that fake/plastic Toy Story look to it. Boo was very cute, but just like Andy in TS she looked very much like a cartoon. The animation/movements of Sully seemed awkward and unnatural at times. Unless animation of fur plays a big role in deciding the Oscar, I can't really see Monsters winning it.

which I think will be higher eventually for Monsters than Shrek; Shrek is still playing in some theaters, Monsters Inc has been out for what, four weeks? I think Monsters will have some more life during Christmas Break, as will HarryI don't know about that...by the time Shrek dipped below the the $10M per weekend mark it had already racked up a $228 million box office and was in it's 7th week. Monsters is at about $204 after it's 5th week and has already fallen below the $10M mark. Might pick up a little over Christmas break, but it will also have the Jimmy Neutron film from Nickelodeon to compete with. My guess is that Monsters will top out at just below $250 million. Still not bad.

[d-r]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by johare
So that means that more people actually went to see Shrek then. Perhaps they should record attendence figures for movies along with the dollar totals. It would be more meaningful.

I don't get your logic there...think about this one. Tckets cost more at Shrek than LK, and LK grossed more than Shrek, therefore more people went to see Shrek than LK?

I know that you love Shrek, Johare, but I only thought it was OK. What you saw as wonderful life-like animation, I saw as stilted video-game like caricatures with jerky motion similar to claymation. What struck you as an amusing story hit me as tired and somewhat mean spirited. What sounded like a fun sound track to you seemed like a bunch of baby boomer covers to me, etc. and so on. Don't get me wrong, I was glad to have seen Shrek, it just wasn't all that to me.

Honestly, I think that this thread points out how subjective a movie experience can be. I'm guessing that you saw Shrek in the theatre with your family and you all had a wonderful time that night, and you will always remember that and the movie seemed wonderful for you. We rented the DVD and watched it while we probably had other stuff on our minds and the movie didn't make much of a dent on us. You can read reviews from two critics - who write about movies for a profession and so are hopefully knowledgable about film - who disagree completely.

But, even though "ranking" films is probably very subjective, I do think and hope that they will use more than the total box office to choose the academy award winner. That said, I hope that Monsters, Inc. overtakes Shrek (because I'm tired of those "Biggest movie of the year" DVD commercials before the year was over = obnoxious).

DR

[johare]

I don't get your logic there...think about this one. Tckets cost more at Shrek than LK, and LK grossed more than Shrek, therefore more people went to see Shrek than LK? I don't get my logic on that one either...looks like I was thinking backwards. :) Still think it would make more sense to record attendance figures (though maybe not to the bean counters).
What you saw as wonderful life-like animation, I saw as stilted video-game like caricatures with jerky motion similar to claymation. What struck you as an amusing story hit me as tired and somewhat mean spirited. Well, everyone sees what they want to. To me the animation on Shrek was close to perfect. Many film critics also raved about how good the animation was so I'm quite sure I'm not alone here. Shrek had a realistic feel to it. Monsters was good, but still felt like nothing more than a 3d cartoon.
I'm guessing that you saw Shrek in the theatre with your family and you all had a wonderful time that night, and you will always remember that and the movie seemed wonderful for youWe both Shrek and Monsters in the theater and actually the Shrek experience wasn't that great. There was a very cold draft blowing down on us and we had to move all the way to the back (only seats left) and it was still a bit too cold in the theater. Regal wound up sending us 4 comp passes which we used for Monsters. So, we liked Shrek because it was a great movie...didn't really have much to do with our experience the first time we saw it.
That said, I hope that Monsters, Inc. overtakes Shrek (because I'm tired of those "Biggest movie of the year" DVD commercials before the year was over = obnoxious). And if Monsters were to overtake Shrek, do you think the Disney commercials would be any less obnoxious? I'm still hoping Monsters does well, but falls just short of overtaking Shrek. And I also hope they use more than box office to decide the Oscar because I still think Shrek will come out on top.

[YoHo]

Johare, I think his point would be that Disney's comercails would occur after the years was over and that Dreamworks was being presumtuous.

Best Picture doesn't usually go to the Box office Champ. Monsters may win based on its story. On the other hand, Shrek also may win based on its original Story. The box office figures are so close that it will have little to nothing to do with it.

[johare]

Johare, I think his point would be that Disney's comercails would occur after the years was over and that Dreamworks was being presumtuous. That's only because Monsters was released in November. It's not unusual for any studio to proclaim that they have the 'biggest movie of the year' if they find themselves in that position.

I also agree that box office numbers won't play a big part in deciding the Oscar. Heck, the more I think about it I'm not sure why I even want Shrek to win the Oscar...typically the movies that win Oscar's are the ones which I find boring. Either way, it's going to be close and tough to pick the winner before it's actually announced.

[stevenpensacola]

We rented Shrek this past weekend. We (wife and three kids) enjoyed it more than
Monsters inc.

For those griping about the fart jokes, I remember a little Disney film called
"The Lion King" that had its fair share of bathroom humor.....remember..?

[raidermatt]

Three year old son loved Monsters, as well as Lion King, Peter Pan, and others.

Shrek didn't hold his attention for more than 5 minutes.

For every yin, there's a yang.

[YoHo]

He found his aroma lacked a certain appeal
He could clear the savannah after every meal

I'm a sensitive soul though I seem thick-skinned
And it hurt that my friends never stood downwind
And oh, the shame He was ashamed
Thought of changin' my name What's in a name?
And I got downhearted How did ya feel?
Everytime that I...

Hey! Pumbaa! Not in front of the kids!
Oh. Sorry

[Captain Crook]

Above comments true, Yoho & Steven...except Shrek would have just said "it" rather than use innuendo. It reminds m of comedy...What's funny? I always liked Richard Prior in spite of his rather blue language & material but my poor old Mom & Dad could never get past that. Cursing, bathroom humor & the like are easy but perhaps easy to take too far as well my thoughts of Shrek).

As for me, I still haven't seen Monsters but we watched Shrek again and I must say...My wife watched only about 5 minutes the second time. My 12 year old daughter watched maybe 15 minutes. My 8 year old watched the whole thing, again (mostly alone) and I watched the last 1/2 hour with her. I have come to realize that the Pirate, er, ah Crook family is not the "average" customer (whatever that may be)...
:smooth: :smooth: :bounce: :smooth: :smooth: