PDA

View Full Version : Would Walts Disney release a film like this???


Bob O
11-16-2003, 10:26 PM
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattsb.htm
What are your thoughts about this news from the disney company???
Who thinks Walt would let a company under his nameplate release this type of movie??

eleanor
11-17-2003, 06:04 AM
Never

wdwguide
11-17-2003, 06:24 AM
I doubt it, but Walt's been dead for almost 40 years. Get over it. Running the company under that "What would Walt do" approach nearly ran it into the ground. Not that releasing a comedy like this will generate a large return on their investment (if any), but AFAIK Disney doesn't have all that much say in what Miramax is doing anyway.

What I dislike is the blatant exploitation of Walt's name and likeness to justify what the company is doing in its family sector. Retlaw should have never sold themselves to the company.

Pooh67_68
11-17-2003, 07:03 AM
Completely off track here. This is John Ritter's last film.

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 07:52 AM
I don't consider myself a prude and I'm not one to say that "Walt would never have done .....", but I just don't think Disney needs to be associated with movies like Bad Santa or Kill Bill. I don't have a problem with Disney having a subsidiary company like Miramax that can make edgier adult movies, but I'd rather see them leave these bad taste, sophmoric humor movies for the Fox's and WB's of this world.

Peter Pirate
11-17-2003, 08:03 AM
But thats just your personal opinion Vike, right?

Heaven's knows we usually agree on things but I think this is just what Miramax is supposed to do (i.e. create movies that they think will be profitable without the stigma, positive or negative, of the Disney name). I don't think Disney should meddle with the policies of a Miramax, I think they should happily reap the benefits or sever their relationship (personally I'll take a profitable Mirmix, warts and all, over a severing of the relationship). The money Disney earns from these relationships is too great and has too little bottom line affect on the Disney name to worry about...But this, of course, is just my opinion.
pirate:

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 08:25 AM
Absolutely Pete.

I have no idea how movies like BS reflect on the Disney image because I honestly don't know how many people associate Miramax with Disney. When a Pixar movie is about to be released, all the marketing includes "Disney" so for the most part the masses think Nemo is a Disney flik or Pixar/Disney are one-in-the-same. I don't think the average movie goer or non-Disney fanatic really gives "who's movie is it" a second thought.

But,IMO, regardless of wether or not people know BS is a Disney flik, I don't like Santa Claus saying "F***" to children. Upon reflection, I guess my biggest problem with Kill Bill was having Tarantino telling everyone it was a great kids movie.

Another Voice
11-17-2003, 08:33 AM
And the chant goes up - "anything for money!!!!!!"

Sorry, I'll stick to quality presentations. I value my time and I wish to waste none of it acting as a wallet to funnel money to the greedy and the uncaring.

I mean really what's the deal here. Stuff like this makes money for Miramax which makes money for Disney which is a good thing because it keeps the beloved parks going?

So – churning out the slime for the ignorant and the base is acceptable because it keeps the pool at your DVC resort nice and warm? The only hope of seeing 'Beastly Kingdom' is for the company to brown bag release 'Girls Gone Wild at the ESPN Zone'?

Nope, the real reason is because Disney thinks stuff like this is easy money. And for the fans, they tolerate stuff like this because liking "Disney" seems to be more important than liking what Disney makes.

Funny, there was a time when Disney was successful without having to scrap the pennies off the bottom of the barrel. But those without talent, skill or imagination have to pander after what they can get.

bretsyboo
11-17-2003, 09:21 AM
There is no way with Walt at the helm this film would have been made, it's just silly to think. Mirimax was set up to hide the fact that movies were made by the company...apparently this is no longer working.

As the head of a movie company if Quentin Terentino, or any other huge nammed director makes a movie, then I'm going to release it, many of them at the very least try to go beyond stage direction and into art. I haven't seen Kill Bill, and I heard it's not exactly artistic, but I have no beef with it being released on Miramax.

The new Santa movie, just the preview I personally saw, regardless of what Drudge tells us, looks disgusting and stupid. You have to wonder what demographic this movie is looking for...

Heaven's knows we usually agree on things but I think this is just what Miramax is supposed to do (i.e. create movies that they think will be profitable without the stigma, positive or negative, of the Disney name).

I heard stories like this for Kill Bill as well, apparently people now associate Miramax with Disney, so this quote can no longer hold true because the Miramax name is now synonymous with Disney. But cutting ties isn't the thing to do...Miramax isn't the problem, having movies on it like this santa one is the problem. Some fine movies have been released under the miramax name, ex. the piano.

I doubt it, but Walt's been dead for almost 40 years. Get over it. Running the company under that "What would Walt do" approach nearly ran it into the ground.

When exactly did this happen? The Walt approach died with Walt, and the last fibers of it with Roy. Period. Walt was going for a city, they gave up and built a geosphere. This is running the company like Walt would have done? I doubt his dream of Epcot finished with another theme park and Card Walker's name on a plaque. Disney was a mess in the early 80's. It's theme parks were run down. This is what running it like Walt, "that's just it, mine won't be" when referring to park cleanliness Disney would have done?

Please. Had only the internet been around back then so that everybody could have discussed the Epcot rumors about a utopian like city, and then seen it become a theme park with the same name...then no one would have been claiming the park was run like Walt would have done it.

wdwguide
11-17-2003, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by bretsyboo
When exactly did this happen? The Walt approach died with Walt, and the last fibers of it with Roy.

You should read "Storming the Magic Kingdom".

Peter Pirate
11-17-2003, 09:59 AM
Schlock is going to made whether we like it or not. The question is should Disney bury their head in the sand and say, "fine, it's profitable, but we're not going to take a cent of that dirty, uncreative money. We will do it our way only." That seems silly to me.

I still don't think the Miramax - Disney tie in is that well known, but even if it is, Miramax is still only an arm. I don't think what is relevent for a "Disney movie" has to extend to Miramax as well.

I hate this crap that makes its way to the silver screen but as long as enough quality (POC) makes it to the screen why complain that a piece of crap (Scary Movie512) was successful enough to help finance it?

Further, it is just silly to say there is no way Walt would do something or wouldn't do something when there is virtually no historical indication to prove such (that Disney resembled this Disney very little). Walt would not have made these movies in his day of course, but look at the schlock he did OK. He wasn't above it.

And yes Mr. Voice, there was a time...But that time is not now and that is bad for all of us.
pirate:

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 10:13 AM
***"Walt would not have made these movies in his day of course, but look at the schlock he did OK. He wasn't above it." ***

Back in Walt's day, would any company have made movies like KB or BS ?? I doubt it. I doubt that back then the very concept of a movie like BS would even be a concious thought, it was an entirely different age.

Another Voice
11-17-2003, 10:22 AM
Now is not the time?

Really? Let's look at this last summer.

Isn't it kind of interesting that the top grossing movies of the summer were the traggically unhip Fiding Nemo and Pirates of the Caribbean - yet the slock that has to be made or Disney will go bankrupt filicks like Malibu's Most Wanted and Jeeper's Creapers 2 couldn't draw a tenth of the audience?

And did you see that Brother Bear will pass Kill Bill - that "we have to make it for the money and the critics love it!!!" film you defended a while ago? What exactly does that say about the size of the Miramax market verses the size of the traditonal Disney market.

Makes you wonder whether killing feture animation to fund Hellraiser 17 is really worth it.

It doesn't really matter what Walt would or wouldn't do. But standards do matter. Time after time after time it's been shown that good, quality product can do much better than cynical "grab the dough and run" productions. It is common business sense.

Surely that is important no matter what time it is.

ErikdaRed
11-17-2003, 10:41 AM
Yes, Finding Nemo and POTC were both good movies. But I also enjoy watching other movies, like Kill Bill, and I'm looking forward to Bad Santa. While no company in the 50's might have thought of making movies like this, is that necessarily a good thing? If Disney was releasing these branded as Disney that would be a bad thing, otherwise whats the problem? The biggest competitor they have, Dreamworks, has released Old School, The Ring, Head of State, Road Trip, Galdiator, etc all on the same label they released Shrek and the rest of their kids movies on. Why isn't anybody calling for their heads?

Peter Pirate
11-17-2003, 11:19 AM
With regard to Finding Nemo & Pixar, I have specifically stated that (IMO) the only companies capable of following and succeeding with this strategy are the closley held public companies just like Pixar. Jobs has the best of both worlds, money from public investors while still holding a strangle hold on shares...He can follow whatever philosophy he wants. Disney cannot and surely will not be doing anything out of the norm, which means they will be (doing whatever they can to) (1)maximize profits and (2) protect the brand. I know there is a huge difference of opinion on whether they are protecting or destroying the brand but that isn't the point. The point is Disney WILL operate in the pure dollars and cents mode because, while not impossible to do otherwise, it would be very, very, very, very, very, very unusual and risky...Something publically held multinational conglomerates aren't likely to do.

As for the characterization as "unhip" to Finding Nemo, my daughter who's a freshman came home last week and specifically commented on how cool "everybody" at school thinks Nemo is...

So making money by hook or crook is in. Doing it the old fashioned way is out. Please remember I AM NOT endorsing this philosophy only stating that IMO, this is what will continue to transpire...As for this discussion (about Miramax and their movie selection) I do believe that right now it is in Disney's best interest to allow Miramax the frredom to make money as they see fit without interruption from Disney...
pirate:

raidermatt
11-17-2003, 11:23 AM
Crap vs. Quality is one thing.

Stuff that could offend your core audience is another.

Yes, I know Miramax is a separately branded entity, but that's not an automatic pass. For example, if Disney got into the hardcore porn game with a separately branded entity, certainly we could all agree that would not be appropriate for the company and would do more harm than good.

The only question is where should the line be drawn.

Personally, I'd like to see it drawn on this side of Kill Bill and Bad Santa.

By the way, this issue was discussed on a local radio show here in the SF Bay Area this morning, so its not exactly a secret that Disney owns Miramax. In fact, the unfortunate thing for Disney is that seems to be ALL people know... they don't have any clue about the "Disney doesn't really control what Miramax makes" idea.

Question... who decides what previews are shown before films? One of the hosts mentioned that they had gone to see Elf over the weekend and saw a preview for Bad Santa. Didn't bother the host, but they commented that a family with some fairly young children were sitting next to them, and they watched it "with their jaws dropped".

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 11:23 AM
***"The biggest competitor they have, Dreamworks, has released Old School, The Ring, Head of State, Road Trip, Galdiator, etc all on the same label they released Shrek and the rest of their kids movies on. Why isn't anybody calling for their heads?"***

Because we here are Disney fanatics.

***"While no company in the 50's might have thought of making movies like this, is that necessarily a good thing? If Disney was releasing these branded as Disney that would be a bad thing, otherwise whats the problem? "***

"is that necessarily a good thing? " vs " If Disney was releasing these branded as Disney that would be a bad thing"

So a movie in bad taste is ok so long as Disney doesn't make it or at least doesn't try to appear as making it ? Your logic confuses me but that's my problem.

raidermatt
11-17-2003, 11:35 AM
Because we here are Disney fanatics. Yes, that's one reason. Also, there are no Dreamworks fanatics (or at least not in any appreciable numbers).

Something we should keep in mind when saying what's good for "company X" is good for Disney.

So making money by hook or crook is in. Doing it the old fashioned way is out. Please remember I AM NOT endorsing this philosophy only stating that IMO, this is what will continue to transpire... Really, I don't think anybody disagrees that its likely to continue on this way. Certainly AV never said it will stop.

Only that it should.

Is your opinion that Disney is doing the best thing for their business (both short and long term), or that they are not?

The point is Disney WILL operate in the pure dollars and cents mode because, while not impossible to do otherwise, it would be very, very, very, very, very, very unusual and risky... We're not talking about simply foregoing profits. If Disney were to forego things like Kill Bill and Bad Santa, it doesn't mean they simply sit on their hands instead. They would just go in a different direction. Shift the investment to perhaps more family-oriented movies, or action movies, or park investment, or ABC/ESPN, or WHATEVER, just something more in-line with the overall company strategy.

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 11:45 AM
What's going to be sad is that if BS is successful it will only embolden Miramax/Disney to continue down this path.

I want Disney to be profitable because profits are what bring new attractions. It's a shame that the current marketplace allows films like BS to be profitable.

ErikdaRed
11-17-2003, 11:48 AM
Just to be clear, making movies for adults, not a problem. Bad taste is marketing films made for adults to children. The "Disney" brand, for better or worse, is a kids brand, so putting a movie for adults out under that logo would be a bad move.

I really don't see what the problem is with Bad Santa, its a thief in a costume. And as a man, he behaves badly, its not like they are having the "real" Santa go on a bender.

Douglas Dubh
11-17-2003, 12:00 PM
One of the hosts mentioned that they had gone to see Elf over the weekend and saw a preview for Bad Santa. Didn't bother the host, but they commented that a family with some fairly young children were sitting next to them, and they watched it "with their jaws dropped".
I've seen the trailer, and the only movie I've seen recently is Brother Bear, so I'm thinking this movie is being marketed to families, at least somewhat. I suspect the final cut is no where near as offensive as the Drudge report makes it sound - the excerpts where probably from an early script. I think this movie will include a redemption of the character in question, so it's necessary for him to illustrate what a wretch he is in the beginning of the movie, in order to show that he needs to be redeemed by the power of Christmans.

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 12:00 PM
One scene features a child at a shopping mall asking, "You are really Santa, right?"

Santa responds: "No, I'm an accountant. I wear this as a f**king fashion statement!"

Santa yells at the kid, several times: "Got-dammit! Are you f**ing with me?"

Parts like this I have a real problem with,regardless of the film company. It just seems a little perverse to me that Disney would be associated in any way with it.

Another Voice
11-17-2003, 12:10 PM
So "old fashioned" way of making money is out?

Really??

Let's compare the box office take from the "ancient, forgotten dead guy movies" like The Rookie, The Princess Diaries and Freaky Friday with the coin generated by the make-money-hand-over-fist flicks (and Touchstone so we don't sully The Brand) like Bubble Boy, The Hot Chick and Sorority Boys.

Hmmm…gee.

And let's look at the box office take of Kill Bill. The uberhip, uberstylish flick from the megahip Director of All Time. The critics went into spasms to praise this one and it has all the blood and flying female body parts so that proles ought to lined up for BLOCKS to throw their money at the box office.

Gee, it ranks #30 for the year, it's been passed by Elf after only two weeks in release and has barely earned half of what Spy Kids 3 made. Gee part two - the horribly underhip, understylish Freaky Friday has already earned 40% more coin!

Strictly looking at this from a business point of view, it sure seems like "we do this for the money" doesn't really work, does it?

Now I don’t mean that the top of the box office is only filled with masterpieces, but the notion that quality is a loser and you got to appeal to the bottom for riches is a complete fallacy. But the low quality, low taste movie is much easier to make. It appeals to a certain type of filmmaker (I can almost hear the commentary on the Bad Santa DVD as the black turtleneck and ponytailed director chortles at the irony of twisting Middle America's patron saint of consumerism). Overall, it's simply a sign of laziness and a lack of respect for the audience.

The sad thing is the Disney has already discovered the secret of success many times over - the good mid budget film. This has nothing to do with philosophy or old idea that now longer works; this is all about basic business sense about what sells and what doesn't.

And again, the rational for these movies is they make money for Disney and so the we'll get an extra hour in Adventureland? I'd much rather have a movie I like to watch (or at least one I don't have to avoid to keep my lunch) than live with the faint hope that selling garbage with one hand will produce diamonds in the other.

HB2K
11-17-2003, 12:45 PM
Schlock is going to made whether we like it or not. The question is should Disney bury their head in the sand and say, "fine, it's profitable, but we're not going to take a cent of that dirty, uncreative money. We will do it our way only." That seems silly to me.

Peter-

Using this thinking I can't wait to visit The Gold Club - Downtown Disney West Side! Will the strippers wear Mouse Ears?

Hey you're saying Disney should be taking ANY profits...be them sleazy or not right?

Does making this sleaze still sound silly?

Just because there is an industry for a product does not mean Disney should be jumping into it.

It's a slippery slope.

ErikdaRed
11-17-2003, 01:15 PM
Actually the scene described can be seen as quite funny for anyone that has ever gotten sick and tired of obvious quesitions.

As far as "quality" goes its all in the eye of the beholder. I personally found Rookie and Princess Diaries to be schlocky and sappy. But they still made money.

And for the strip club in DD. I wouldn't want it there. But if Disney decided to create a sub company to compete with vegas, heck ya I would expect a strip club or two.

Bottom line is that any movie will have its audience and its detractors. There is always the chance of a Scary Movie (made 10x its cost) making it big. Just as there is a chance of a Pearl Harbor, or the Alamo tanking. You want to spread the money around, hedging your bets.


As for the movie at hand:

Bad Santa is rated R, and looks to be one of the cliched the bad guy is saved by the spirit of christmas movies. I would hope that they can place "Santa" in as many bad positions as possible to get the most out of the joke. This includes whoring, drinking, and cursing. If you can't stand to see a man playing an imaginary character as bad, don't watch it. And cross off any number of other movies where a guy in a Santa suit does something wrong.

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 01:19 PM
***"Actually the scene described can be seen as quite funny for anyone that has ever gotten sick and tired of obvious quesitions."***

I don't find it funny when those statements are made to a child.

ErikdaRed
11-17-2003, 01:22 PM
And obviously the movie is not for you. And we need to get the idea of "pretend" here.

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 01:34 PM
this movie is not for for me. And I will not "pretend" that it is ok to use foul language in front of children.

HB2K
11-17-2003, 01:41 PM
And for the strip club in DD. I wouldn't want it there. But if Disney decided to create a sub company to compete with vegas, heck ya I would expect a strip club or two.

Don't you think as a vacation destination, especially one with a nightime "adults only" entertainment district, that Disney competes with Vegas?

And where does this moral-less money grab end? How about a Casino on the West Side (or the boardwalk)?

How about a sub-division to compete with Vivid Video for the adult home entertainment dollar?

And Viking is absolutely right. These trailers are apparently playing in front of Brother Bear & Elf...both of which are positioned to the family & children's markets. What's next...putting the comercial on during the programming breaks in Playhouse Disney?

Killer Fish
11-17-2003, 01:49 PM
I personally think the movie looks very good and so do all of the other people that I go to college with. So there is your audience. The same people that loved Old School, Road Trip, and those quality American Pie movies. I am telling you movies that attract the college crowd do well.

HB2K
11-17-2003, 01:51 PM
I personally think the movie looks very good and so do all of the other people that I go to college with. So there is your audience. The same people that loved Old School, Road Trip, and those quality American Pie movies. I am telling you movies that attract the college crowd do well.
And those are NOT the people the Disney company should be catering to....not in those vechicles.

raidermatt
11-17-2003, 02:30 PM
Of course there are people that will like the movie. There's a possibility I might even like it myself.

But that's not the point. Pick any money making venture and we'll find people that like the product.

The question is, which money-making ventures fit into what the "mission" of the Disney company should be? Could they invest in something more in-line with what their mission should be, yet still generate returns?

To AV's point, they seem to be able to generate greater returns investing in other areas than they can with Kill Bill / Bad Santa type stuff.

DancingBear
11-17-2003, 03:12 PM
Can't read this thread without thinking of the drunken Dan Ackroyd in his Santa suit in Trading Places, stealing the smoked salmon, waiving a gun, and returning to his prostitute friend's house to sleep it off.

Killer Fish
11-17-2003, 03:29 PM
Originally posted by HB2K
And those are NOT the people the Disney company should be catering to....not in those vechicles.

And that is why they are releasing it under Miramax. If Disney was only allowed to make movies about furry animals and keep every movie they make at a PG rating then that would be one thing. Having Miramax, Dimension, and Touchstone allows them to make these other movies and release them and it should not hurt their good name. I don't think there is anything wrong with them releasing these movies. It is not like the previews are saying Walt Disney presents a magical Christmas Story "Bad Santa." So if they want to go out and distribute the movies under the other film studios they should be free to do so.

HB2K
11-17-2003, 03:56 PM
So if they want to go out and distribute the movies under the other film studios they should be free to do so.

So if they want to cash in on the lucrative pornography business, as long as the Disney moniker isn't expressly used it's OK for Disney to own & distribute such films?

So if they want to cash in on the lucrative gambling business, as long as the neon sign out front doesn't expressly say Disney, it's OK for Disney to own a casino?

I'm serious...the explaination used to justify Disney's involvement in these films is a SLIPPERY slope...one which Disney cannot and SHOULD not be going down.

ErikdaRed
11-17-2003, 04:05 PM
The difference of course being that Disney putting out hardcore porn films would probably cause a backlash against the parent company that films like Kill Bill and Bad Santa won't. So it wouldn't be beneficial in the long run. However, after 20+ years of Disney sub studios putting out "garbage" this backlash hasn't happened. People in the 18-34 demographic have most of the disposible income, and the kiddy movies don't cut it with this demographic.

As to the point that they can make money just on the "good" films... For every good one, they have just as many or more that lose money.

And as far as foul language in front of children, words are only "bad" because we as a society have declared them so. I see no problem with swearing in front of kids, doesn't do them any harm.

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 04:06 PM
If Disney were in a do-or-die situation so to speak, where their very survival relied on the profits movies like BS could make, then maybe I'd feel a little different about Miramax and BS. But Disney is no where near that situation. I like that Disney has other studios availible to make more adult films, but that doesn't mean these companies should take the lowbrow humor/violence road just because there is a market for such things. There has to be better scripts availible out there and Disney is still the boss- they can't let the tail wag the dog- they should be able to set certain guidelines for their studios to follow.

Bob O
11-17-2003, 04:10 PM
Since Peter Pirate(as others) thinks its ok for the disney company to make any film as long as its done in pursuit of money should we then maybe turn the orlando animation studio into making porn animation, i mean if it makes money it has to be fine, right???
Or how about Girls Gone Wild in wdw or one of their water parks?? I mean if it makes money it has to be ok.
Apparently some among us thinhk its just fine not to have any standards on how low you can go or how far you will degrade you company or its good name in pursuit of money!!!
So why dont we just have disney license the likeness of Ariel for a porn cartoon. Because if it would make money than all is fun and just in the mind of some people!!!!!!

raidermatt
11-17-2003, 04:38 PM
People in the 18-34 demographic have most of the disposible income, and the kiddy movies don't cut it with this demographic. If only we could go back in time and tell Walt that his company wasn't going to succeed because he was ignoring the most profitable demographic.

Or is it possible that some of these 18-34 year olds have children, and like to take family outings/vacations?

Since Peter Pirate(as others) thinks its ok for the disney company to make any film as long as its done in pursuit of money... I don't think Pete said that. Others, yes. But his statement was that he felt it was ok to continue the relationship with Miramax, not make "anything".

I disagree with the idea that Disney has no choice but to make movies like some of these Miramax offerings, but its not fair to say Pete's line of acceptance includes porn.

Again, my position is that Disney could invest in other projects/products more closely in line with what their "mission" should be, resulting in greater returns than merely looking for stuff that makes money.

HB2K
11-17-2003, 05:03 PM
Bob-

I'm with Matt. I didn't see Peter OK the porn.

It's a tough position...if you're OK with the Disney company (through ANY of it's subsidiaries) making such objectionable movies soley because they can make money, then you really can't complain when the company branches out into other offensive ventures searching for nothing more than profits.

And I think Matt makes the best point...the money spent pursuing these ventures could be better used on a product which applies to your company's mission and can tap into that "vaunted" synergy....you can't really put a Kill Bill or Bad Santa attraction into WDW....can you?

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 05:17 PM
***"....you can't really put a Kill Bill or Bad Santa attraction into WDW....can you?"***

No, but maybe they can sell the movie/ride rights to Universal.

Peter Pirate
11-17-2003, 06:21 PM
'Nala Does Pride Rock'...??? Nah. Porn is a giant leap or oversimplification in this argument. As Erik said the ramifications of this wouldn't be the same as for Kill Bill.

But I will throw this out, I'm not so sure I wouldn't support a Disney Casino in Las Vegas. Adult entertainment for adult disneylovers...Big profits...HBK asked where the line is drawn and I'll answer honestly...I don't know. So guys, tell me why Disney shouldn't (or should) build a Strip Casino in Vegas??? What would be fundementally wrong with another profit center, away from the family action???
pirate:

Killer Fish
11-17-2003, 06:30 PM
Ok stop with the porn. Disney is not making porn they are making movies that appeal to a demographic. They are not going to make porn so it is not an issue. They are making diffenent movies to appeal to different audiences. Miramax released the Others and it was scary I didn't hear anyone complaining then. That movie could give kids nightmares. I understand the synergy aspect but I don't think it always applies. Someone earlier says that people know that Miramax and Dimension are Disney film studios. I do not buy that for a second. Without the Disney name people do not know that. The same way a lot of people thought finding nemo was a disney moive. The only people who do are major film buffs, entertainment people, and those people that post on these boards. I would be willing to bet a lot of money that if I went up to 100 people and asked them to name three studios Disney is over (Touchstone, Miramax, Dimension) not more than ten people would be able to name the three of them. I think that they should be free to make these movies. Don't get me wrong I love movies like Remember the Titans and the Princess Diaries that are the typical Disney movie that generates very nice returns. I just do not think that the company should limit themselves to only making films like this and animated films.

Peter Pirate
11-17-2003, 06:53 PM
I agree with you fish...

On a side note: Eisner was asked about the Bad Santa movie today and said "apparantly nothing is sacred anymore"...
pirate:

Another Voice
11-17-2003, 07:07 PM
Apparently some people are fans of what a company makes...

And some people are fans of a company no matter what they make.

Interesting...

Peter Pirate
11-17-2003, 07:41 PM
I'm a fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean movie, Brother Bear, Mission Space, Mickey's Philharmagic, Princess Diaries, Animal Kingdom Lodge, Lilo & Stitch and the Raven Show on Disney Channel and Al Weiss, to name a few. I'm not a fan of Kill Bill, Scary Movie, the empty HoND theatre, WDW busses, The Pearl Harbor movie, the Proud Family Show on Disney Channel, all of Downtown Disney or Michael Eisner...

Interesting...

HB2K
11-17-2003, 08:18 PM
Ok stop with the porn.
They are making diffenent movies to appeal to different audiences.
I just do not think that the company should limit themselves to only making films like this and animated films.

Sorry Fish...it's not going away.

Where does the line fall? Peter already admitted he doesn't know where it is if we allow these kinds of movies to be made and justified by turning a profit. There are all types of profitable, sleazy markets which Disney has not tapped into. If they opened another arm which doesn't carry the Disney moniker but kicks upstairs to the mouse, why shouldn't they do it using your justifications?

And you can't say Mirimax doesn't tie back to Disney but then turn around and say the PORN industry would in a similar arraingment....

And Peter if you have to ask why Disney should not get involved in the casino business, then I think we've got a chasm the size of the Great Canyon between our views of the Walt Disney Company.

ErikdaRed
11-17-2003, 08:41 PM
The porn issue is different as I said before because there would probably be a large public uproar if it was linked to Disney. Kill Bill or Bad Santa on the other hand, doesn't make it off of this board.

As far as gambling, Disney already does it in the church acceptable form every week.

KNWVIKING
11-17-2003, 08:46 PM
***"As far as gambling, Disney already does it in the church acceptable form every week."***

Disney has BINGO parlors ???? It's been a long day...please explain your comment.

ErikdaRed
11-17-2003, 08:57 PM
Two parlors, called the Magic and the Wonder. Bingo every day of the week.

Killer Fish
11-17-2003, 09:05 PM
Once again STOP WITH THE PORN. It is not relevant. Dimension has been making rated R movies for a long time. Scream came out a long time ago. It had bad language, violence, and gore. It was released under Dimension. Disney did not go wow that works lets try porn. I have said before that Disney will draw the line somewhere and porn is definitely on the other side of that line. So please in future examples stop bringing up porn. You and I know that it is not going to happen and if it does than that is where I will give up Disney forever. I am not concerned about this though because I know it will never happen. I do not see how Bad Santa and Kill Bill can be considered any worse than the Scream trilogy and Jay and Silent Bob Strike back. They appealed to another audience and I really don't think that they alienated the Disney family audience because it had no effect on them. I was younger when the first Scream came out (under 17). When it came out my parents didn't say, "Well Michael, Dimension as you know is owned by Disney and they released a movie with bad language. We think that this is bad for Disney's image so we are not going to see Disney's movies or go on vacation at disney world again. I am pretty sure that they did not even know that Dimension is owned by Disney (still don't think they know). In conclusion, Bad Santa is good for a certain audience. If you are a college student like myself you can go see the movie with your friends. Next day I can go see Brother Bear with my family. I get to see two movies that I want to see and I am happy.

Sorry for not breaking this into paragraphs. :)

Peter Pirate
11-17-2003, 09:05 PM
...then I think we have a chasam as wide as the Grand Canyon...
Oh HBK, don't jump to conclusions ;) ...I'm open for discussion here too...But after two trips to Vegas in the past two years I see a lot of Disney type magic there. Maybe there is a form of 'wholesome gambling'? (lol)...Apart from the DCL gambling already allowed...Very intersting Mr. red...pirate:

wdwguide
11-17-2003, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by HB2K
Sorry Fish...it's not going away.

Where does the line fall?

The line falls where you yourself put it. Once the company crosses your line, stop paying them. I can live without Taco Bell, KFC and American music CDs (anything that falls within the RIAA's grasp) just fine, because these companies/organisations have crossed my line and they haven't seen a single penny from me since.

Once the number of people who do the same reaches a critical mass, the company will start losing money and will probably address the issue. Once Taco Bell stops endorsing slave labor, once KFC stops endorsing the horrid treatment of animals they expect me to eat, and once the RIAA stops suing everybody left and right for music piracy when they themselves disseminate materials onto those networks and use them for marketing purposes I may change my mind.

If the company gets close to crossing the line, let them know. They won't care in most cases (Disney certainly doesn't), but then you can say that you did your part.

Bob O
11-17-2003, 11:54 PM
Now some here will say"Disney would never do porn".
But how can anyone say that will never happen???
Who would have thought 15 yrs ago that disney would be involved in the making of Kill Bill which is extremely violent and where the director states the movie is fine for kids over 12 yrs old if i got the age right.
Or who would have thought 15 yrs ago or even 10 that the disney company would be involved in a film where Santa uses profanities and has sex openly, with no reading in between the lines.
Its not much of a leap in another 5-10 yrs for r-rated movies to show images of sex that would have be considered porn now or would have been a couple of yrs ago, and this from a company that is supposed to be family friendly???
Whats next for syngergy, a Kill Bill float or Bad Santa float in a parade to boost upcoming dvd sales??? Maybe they could use Bad Santa as a rival to grinchmas at USF??
If disney is going to go to great lengths to portray their company/theme parks etc as family friendly then the line should be drawn where they arent going to release r-rated films that would offend alot of the same people who visit their parks or stores.
Since it is known that the largest moneymaking movies tend to be pg-13 or even pg then im sure disney as a company wouldnt go bankrupt and have their image sullied by making movies like Kill Bill or bad Santa.
And if this means getting out of bed with Miramax, so be it. Disney is happy to be a partner with Miramax when it wins a Oscar for a movie like Shakesphere in Love but now cant disnatce itself from that same company when it releases films like Bad Santa/Kill Bill.
A company needs to stand for something and a company with the pedigree of Walt Disney has always stood for strong family values(until recently that is).
I guess some are willing to lower their values and sell their soul in the pursuit of a dollar, but i would guess that the company NEVER would have been invovled in films like Kill Bill/Bad Santa etc under the regimes before the arival of eisner and even he wouldnt have done this when he was newly hired.

HB2K
11-18-2003, 07:52 AM
Pirate-

Disney should not be in the Vegas gambling business for the same reasons they shouldn't own ABC. It's against their core buisiness concepts and the money should be invested elsewhere in their target markets.
But after two trips to Vegas in the past two years I see a lot of Disney type magic there

Aside from fantasy architecture, what concept is Disneyish? Breaking the family apart on a vacation except for breif interludes to dinners or shows? Little Johny can't sit on Daddy's lap while he's playing Blackjack....

Fish-

You can't make the arguement that on one hand Disney can have a seperately branded arm to put out the movie's it's core constituancy have a problem with and not tie the main brand to these movies....but then say it wouldn't work that way if the company continued to reach into other questionable markets in a similar manner....I mean you're saying it works for Mirimax & Dimension but not anything else?

Where's the line? If you say one form of sleazy movie is OK to distribute because it brings money, how is another form of sleazy movie not OK to distribute even thought it brings money???

As BobO points out...who would have guessed 15-20 years ago that Disney would be behind (albeit in the shadows) such perverse concepts as Kill Bill & Bad Santa?

WDWGuide-

I know where my personal line is, and up until recently Disney crossed it with regards to their theme park business. Recent events put them back on the right side of the line, but we'll see for how long.

My point to Peter & to a greater extent Fish & Eric is this. Where is the line where Disney selling a product (through any of it's marketing arms) soley for the purposes of making a quick buck fall? They scream to stop the porn analogy, but they don't say where Disney will stop. 15-20 Years ago we would have been screaming STOP THE HORROR analogies....and we know where that ended up...

Killer Fish
11-18-2003, 07:54 AM
As I have said before the average consumer does not know that Disney owns Miramax and Dimension. If you say otherwise I believe you are wrong. The average theme park person will not know these movies are even related to Disney. Pulp Fiction came out quite a while ago and still no movement to porn.

DancingBear
11-18-2003, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by Bob O Or who would have thought 15 yrs ago or even 10 that the disney company would be involved in a film where Santa uses profanities and has sex openly, with no reading in between the lines."Santa" does not curse and have sex in the movie. A con man who dresses like Santa curses and has sex in the movie. Just as in "Trading Places," where a rich man who has had his life pulled out from under him dresses as Santa and does some bad things.

Keep in mind that the article that launched this thread was in the Drudge Report, and that Matt Drudge has an interest in making things sound sensational. Here is a much less "loaded" plot summary from IMDB:

It is the height of the festive holiday season and merry shoppers have begun their yearly pilgrimages to their local malls. Among the drove is a pair of con men, on a decadent road trip as Santa and his elf. Rather than spreading good cheer, the duo's motive is to rob each establishment, a strategy that becomes complicated when they encounter a precocious 8-year old that teaches them the true meaning of Christmas.I think Miramax exists not only to make money (since, as A-V and others have pointed out, studios often try to AVOID an R-rating so the films will make more money---they say that Ron Howard quit The Alamo because Disney wouldn't let him make that an "R" movie), but to give Disney some "street cred" in the film industry.

Bad Santa may just be a Bad Movie, but it stars Billy Bob Thornton, a respected talent (who is also Davey Crockett in The Alamo), and the red-hot Bernie Mac, and is directed by a guy (Terry Zwigoff) who gets a buzz among funky movie-lover types for his "Crumb" and "Ghost World."

And of course Quentin Tarantino is still one of the hippest young talents in Hollywood.

That's why I don't believe that this is purely about doing anything for money, but about establishing that Disney can work with the edgier, hipper creative types in Hollywood. Which is why this doesn't mean Disney is on the slippery slope toward hard-core porn.

Remember "Down and Out in Beverly Hills." An R-rated movie where Richard Dreyfus is having sex with the maid, Nick Nolte is having sex with everyone, the teenage son is unsure about his sexual orientation.... An offbeat director, Paul Mazursky. The prime example of the mid-budget movie which Eisner used to rebuild the live action movie production at Disney (via Touchstone). WOULD WALT'S DISNEY RELEASE A FILM LIKE THIS?

Disney is happy to be a partner with Miramax when it wins a Oscar for a movie like Shakesphere in Love but now cant disnatce itself from that same company when it releases films like Bad Santa/Kill Bill.I think this is kind of the point. I don't think Miramax works unless it has the creative freedom to pursue different, interesting projects. A-V complains here that Disney chases away Hollywood talent, but then says Disney should have dictated limits to Tarentino, and should have told the Weinsteins not to make Bad Santa. I find that contradictory.

Sure, there may be limits (note that Disney did push the Weinsteins to take "Dogma" out of Miramax), but I'm not so sure that "Bad Santa" is going to be as horrifying as portrayed in the Drudge Report. Horrifyingly bad, perhaps, but...

DisneyKidds
11-18-2003, 09:34 AM
Porn is a giant leap or oversimplification in this argument.
But Peter, the porn angle just adds so much value to the discussion. No..............it's not the R&N Board version of Globe type tabloid sensationalist garbage, it really is......................
Interesting...
.......................NOT! :rolleyes:

HB2K
11-18-2003, 10:01 AM
"Santa" does not curse and have sex in the movie

While I've yet to see the preview I'm running on the information presented in this thread. This is getting airplay in forums other than Drudge as well...which leads me to quote Matt from earlier in this thread:

By the way, this issue was discussed on a local radio show here in the SF Bay Area this morning, so its not exactly a secret that Disney owns Miramax. In fact, the unfortunate thing for Disney is that seems to be ALL people know... they don't have any clue about the "Disney doesn't really control what Miramax makes" idea.

Question... who decides what previews are shown before films? One of the hosts mentioned that they had gone to see Elf over the weekend and saw a preview for Bad Santa. Didn't bother the host, but they commented that a family with some fairly young children were sitting next to them, and they watched it "with their jaws dropped".

As to the porn issue...it is a bit overblown...but it illustrates the point...where does Disney set it's line? 15-20 Years ago noone would have imagined this type of film coming from the Walt Disney Company (or any of it's various branches). Now it's commonplace...all in the name of making a quick buck. So what other industries (such as a Casino if you don't like the porn referrence) will they jump into using the same realization?

crusader
11-18-2003, 10:13 AM
And some people are fans of a company no matter what they make.

It's called consumer preference or brand loyalty. It's been going on since labels were invented.

or in your business it's the WB against the Independent Film. One produces crap which plays in all the film houses while the other puts out an epic masterpiece which struggles to be sought out and discovered.

Ugly but real.

DancingBear -

I immediately thought of Trading Places myself, and quickly realized how far we'd eroded our standards as depicted in today's version of Bad Santa.

Killer Fish - very great post you put out about the college audience. I happen to agree they are indescriminate with entertainment, and will go out and enjoy it all. Kill Bill reminds me of The Texas Chain Saw Massacre allure of my day. I hear Uma Thurman gives a kick @$$ oscar winning performance.

As for this topic, I welcome the edited version of the Bad Santa for all its' comedic glory but unfortunately, won't be gettin in line to see it raw. Too bad for Miramax. It would have been a great PG-13 type flick - which should have been considered eventhough it deviates from the "philosophy" of this production house .

Another Voice
11-18-2003, 10:20 AM
I never said they Disney should have put limits on Q.T. He has ever right to make whatever movie he wanted to - even Kill Bill.

But Disney has a right - and an obligation - to decide what movies they want to make and distribute.

It comes down to a simple point - does "Disney" mean anything, or is it simply a brand sticker that gets slapped on product. Does the company itself have a guiding principle about how it makes money, or just "greed is good"? What does it say about the products being released when you have to hide behind phony names? It's already been shown that pandering is not as profitable as producing good products so the entire "we have to do it" line of thought is completely wrong (it's only easier to make a bad movie, not more lucrative)

There is an important question here. It goes back to one of the posts I read while I was trying to catch up. Basically I remember it as saying that the poster knew the cheap direct-to-DVD films were bad, but his daughter was too young ot know the difference and it's a good thing because now she spends all her allowance on princess stuff.

Is that what all this comes down to - brainless consumerism?

Sadly, I see a lot of evidence for it. I mean that's what the "anything for money" argument is basically saying. It doesn't matter what wares Disney hocks. Disney is nothing but a luxury brand and a purchased statues symbol. Or to Mr. Crusader's point - buying a label is easier than earning recognition. That's the core of brand loyalty: esteem without effort.

Disney was best when it made things. But making things are hard. It's much easier to buy products from others, to divorce oneself from responsibility and effort, and to try steal some of the fame for yourself.

Easy, cheap, pointless and shallow.

I show Disney movies to my son because they represent excellent story telling that has a purpose and a point. I do not want my child to toss coins mindlessly into a corporate collection plate. I want them to do more that sit and stare at a screen while their mind empties. I want him to have a good and happy life, not simply be a wallet to be sucked dry.

So I guess this ends with the statement that I wrote originally. The world is too vast and the life is too short to wallow in the mediocre.

ErikdaRed
11-18-2003, 11:42 AM
The prevading idea seems to be that Bad Santa and Kill Bill are bad movies made just for a quick buck. I for one don't hold with this idea. Also, why can't disney be involved in movies just for adults, they definitely make rides that children can't enjoy? Just because something is against your personal morals does not mean it is outside of the morals of society as a whole (like porn is now). And someday if porn is accepted art form, I would expect Disney will form an arm and put some out. But as for today, the "slippery slope" ends way to the right of porn. Disney is suffering from its own success at branding itself as a "family"company. If you can just adjust the view to the Disney brand is kid oriented, and the other companies can produce entertainment solely for adults you can relax a little.

DisneyKidds
11-18-2003, 12:05 PM
Also, why can't disney be involved in movies just for adults, they definitely make rides that children can't enjoy?
Rediculous suppositions regarding porn aside......................yes, Disney doesn't just have to cater to the pre-tween set. I suppose there is a place for things like Bad Santa. If I were Eisner would I sit by and let it happen under my company, on my watch? Probably not.....................but that is neither here nor there and Miramax is it's own label. I do think Ei$ner's words on the film are just lip service to try and create the perception of some distance between Disney and this Miramax offering.

So while any company, including Disney, has a right and responsibility to make entertainment for the masses (not that I would choose the same vehicles, but yes I'd produce things that appealed to more than just kids)....................I don't think it is appropriate to advertise such entertainment at family movies or during family hour on the tube. I think putting a parent in a position to have to explain the actions of the BS santa to a child is unforgiveable.....................even if that BS is redeemed by the spirit of Christmas at the end of the movie (for those who waste the scratch to get to that point). When I saw the commercial for this film I was apalled.

DancingBear
11-18-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Another Voice
It's already been shown that pandering is not as profitable as producing good products so the entire "we have to do it" line of thought is completely wrong (it's only easier to make a bad movie, not more lucrative)Is "Kill Bill" necessarily "pandering" and not a "good product"?

DisneyKidds
11-18-2003, 12:29 PM
Is "Kill Bill" necessarily "pandering" and not a "good product"?
I have no idea if Kill Bill is a quality movie in any way. I do somewhat respect AV's opinion on film due to his vast experience in the field. However, I didn't realize he was the sole authority on what represents good entertainement, good products, good hotels, good experiences......................................o h, wait, that is the other thread :crazy: ;).

KNWVIKING
11-18-2003, 12:30 PM
***"I think putting a parent in a position to have to explain the actions of the BS santa to a child is unforgiveable.....................even if that BS is redeemed by the spirit of Christmas at the end of the movie (for those who waste the scratch to get to that point). When I saw the commercial for this film I was apalled."***

Exactly. You can make a movie with the same message without resorting to the foul language and sex, Miramax simply chose not to. That doesn't mean Miramax shouldn't or couldn't make films with sex,violence,sex,foul language and sex, by why throw Santa and children into the mix.

We can only surmise what Eisner's true intent is when he makes statements like "is nothing sacred". Personally, I hope he's sincere when he says that and until I'm proven wrong, will accept his statement at face value.

DancingBear
11-18-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by KNWVIKING
***"I think putting a parent in a position to have to explain the actions of the BS santa to a child is unforgiveable.....................even if that BS is redeemed by the spirit of Christmas at the end of the movie (for those who waste the scratch to get to that point). When I saw the commercial for this film I was apalled."***

Exactly. You can make a movie with the same message without resorting to the foul language and sex, Miramax simply chose not to. That doesn't mean Miramax shouldn't or couldn't make films with sex,violence,sex,foul language and sex, by why throw Santa and children into the mix.Why not? It's an R-rated movie. If the stories are true that they ran the previews for this in front of Brother Bear, that makes no sense, but nevertheless, how is a parent going to have to "explain the actions of the BS santa to a child" unless the child sees an R-rated movie. The preview looks obnoxious enough, but really no more so than many other ads on TV all of the time.

DisneyKidds
11-18-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by DancingBear
Why not? It's an R-rated movie. If the stories are true that they ran the previews for this in front of Brother Bear, that makes no sense, but nevertheless, how is a parent going to have to "explain the actions of the BS santa to a child" unless the child sees an R-rated movie. The preview looks obnoxious enough, but really no more so than many other ads on TV all of the time.
I agree. It is an R-rated movie. No problem with sex and foul language in an R-rated film. However, you dismiss the fact that they may have advertised it at a G-rated film way too quickly. The portrayal of the BS santa in the trailer and tv commericials (that are on prior to most kiddies bed times) are enough to lead innocent, santa-believing kids to ask questions................so that is how a parent might have to deal with this portrayal of St. Nick even if their kids don't see the movie.

Another Voice
11-18-2003, 01:55 PM
Two interesting tidbits just came through on the Studio Breifing (http://studiobrf.newshare.com/):

FINDING NEMO SETS NEW RECORDS
After just two weeks at retailers, the home video version of Finding Nemo has already taken in between $360 million and $400 million, far more than the $340 million that the theatrical version earned during its entire domestic run, the Los Angeles Times reported today (Tuesday). The Disney/Pixar feature has also set a two-week record for DVD sales of 15 million copies sold, exceeding the previous record of 14.5 million set by The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. The second Rings movie, The Two Towers, is set to go on sale in video outlets today.


WAS DISNEY "SHOCKED" BY BAD SANTA MOVIE?
A report that originally appeared on the Ain't It Cool News website claiming that Disney execs were "totally horrified" when they screened the upcoming Miramax film Bad Santa has been picked up by a number of British newspapers. "[Billy Bob] Thornton Film Shocks Disney," headlined one report. Another said that it "shows Father Christmas drinking, stealing and chasing girls." A third reported: "Gobsmacked executives rubbed their eyes at scenes of the filthy Father Christmas bonking while kiddies are left queuing outside his grotto." Most of the reports carried a quote from an unnamed source close to Disney chairman Michael Eisner that was cited in the AICN article: "Nothing appears sacred anymore. This is just not in the spirit of Walt Disney." However, a Disney spokesperson told today's (Tuesday) New York Daily News: ""No one [at Disney] has expressed any complaints to us. Over time there have been great stories about bad Santas who have redeemed themselves. This is one of them. The humor in the film speaks for itself."

A) Once again, the "traditional" Disney type of film has proven profitable. It's hard to see where Bad Santa can rack up these kind of numbers. Given Disney's limited resources, wouldn't it make sense to concentrate where they would get the largest return? What is the economic rationale for Bad Santa.

B) The fig leaf that "it's not really Disney" wasn't going to last forever. The idea that you can wrap a film in a brown paper bag and sell in on the street corner to avoid harming your brand is a thing of the past.

The question isn't why Disney can't make the The Hot Chick type movies - the question is why should Disney make them.

This is not to say that Disney should only make movies about fuzzy animals. There is most defintely a place for "R" and even "A" rated films depending on the subject matter. But why divert and waste the resources to show a drunk jerk making the sign of the double backed elf in Santa's workshop when those resources could have been used to making something lasting and profitable?

ErikdaRed
11-18-2003, 02:44 PM
Well Kill Bill has already doubled its budget. So its profitable, but as for "lasting" will have to wait and see. (But the other QT movies have stuck around quite well.) I'll go out on a limb and predict that Bad Santa will also turn a nice profit. The word of mouth is already good in the circles where people will accept it.

And its not like every disney movie is the lightning in a bottle that Finding Nemo is, look at Dinosaur (-$20M), Atlantis (-$40M) , and Treasure planet (-$140M). All with $100M+ price tags and all didn't make it back, Nemo will finance the next 3 losers like this.

KNWVIKING
11-18-2003, 05:05 PM
***"A) Once again, the "traditional" Disney type of film has proven profitable. It's hard to see where Bad Santa can rack up these kind of numbers. "***

AV, we tend to disagree on a lot of topics but I do agree on some of your points in this thread. What will be unfortunate is if BS turns out to be a smashing success. It will only embolden Miramax and possibly even Disney to push the envelope a little further in the realm of bad taste.

Bob O
11-18-2003, 05:23 PM
Great post AV!!!!!! The studio briefing excerpted is so true.
And even if Kill Bill is a oscar winner(wont happen) or if Bad Santa would win one(hardly) they arent movies that a company that portrays themselves as a family friendly company should be making!!!!
Disney has been involved in movies not just for kids ie-POTC today and movies like Armageddon in the past that were financially successful.
The company can be very successful without making movies that are overly violent just for the sake of being violent like Kill Bill. or overly vulgar like Bad Santa. I guess they just coudlnt do Santa Claus 3 so Bad Santa will have to do.
Why ruin a companys past history/legacy just for the pursuit of a quick buck???
Now that Mickey is celebrating his 75th anniv. should we have him now in more adult type theme's(maybe a cameo in Kill Bill2 or Bad Santa???) if it could make money as apparently some here are far more concerned about then that would be just fine, right??

Werner Weiss
11-18-2003, 05:48 PM
Have you watched the trailer for Bad Santa?

Go to http://www.apple.com/trailers/miramax/bad_santa/

And have you read the synopsis at Yahoo's Upcoming Movies site?

Go to http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&id=1808403039&cf=info

<blockquote>Crime/Gangster and Comedy
1 hr. 33 min. This is the story of two criminals who disguise themselves as Santa Claus (Thornton) and his elf, traveling across the country to major malls, using the good will people have towards Santa to rob the stores blind. The plan is going great until the two baddies meet an introverted 8-year-old boy who reminds them of the true meaning of Christmas.

Release Date: November 26th, 2003 (wide).

MPAA Rating: R for pervasive language, strong sexual content and some violence.

Distributor: Dimension Films </blockquote>

Some folks seem to think this is a raunchy movie about Santa Claus. Nope. It's a raunchy movie about a crook in a Santa suit. There is a difference.

Neither the trailer nor the synopsis make me want to see this movie. But I think some people on this board are getting more upset than necessary.

Another Voice
11-19-2003, 10:55 AM
If it was just this one film I would agree with your point Mr. Weiss. In fact, I like the director's other film, Ghost World.

It's just that this one seems to slide in with a long line of Disney "anything for money" flicks - Hot Chick, Bubble Boy, etc. - that are made with out real thought, effort, talent and end up not making much money anyway.

We're being told how much Disney has to cut back. That shortened hours and such are vital for the company. Everyone nods in agreement when told that 'Soaring over Califorina' can't have a new film at Epcot because of the expense.

Well, if Disney had taken the $20 million (a guess) it took to buy Bad Santa my guess you could do a hell of a lot of soaring for that kind of coin.

It's a question of priorities. Where is the company going to invest its "limited" resources?

And are we fans obligated to simply go along with whatever the company chooses to do - or are we more interested in the products themselves instead of the brand sticker.

crusader
11-19-2003, 11:37 AM
It's a question of priorities. Where is the company going to invest its "limited" resources?

Absolutely.

Particularly given the fact that this company commingles its' resources from all segments in order to finance the entire operation of the business.

If that weren't the case, we would be able to concentrate this discussion on the production division.

Throw this latest flick into the same trashbin as the Buffalo Soldiers. I do believe it is right up there with the other assembly line crap pumped out of Hollywood these days "now showing in a theatre near you."

Kill Bill however cannot be placed in this category.

DancingBear
11-19-2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by crusader
Throw this latest flick into the same trashbin as the Buffalo Soldiers. I do believe it is right up there with the other assembly line crap pumped out of Hollywood these days "now showing in a theatre near you."

Kill Bill however cannot be placed in this category. At what point in the process do you know that Kill Bill is not "assembly-line crap" but "Bad Santa," with its own funky sensibility director and somewhat off-kilter star, is not?

At what point do you know that "Hot Chick" will not be as wildly profitable as "Big Daddy"? And is Big Daddy any more "assembly line crap" for its day as "Son of Flubber" was in 1963?

crusader
11-19-2003, 10:04 PM
DancingBear -

You're on to something. For Bad Santa, I am making an assumption based on the disclosures. It reeks of assembly line trash because it erodes in content. Even if the storyline defends the action, the content goes too far. The only reason I can see for Billybob to provide an audiovisual demonstration of his manhood vs simply playing a perverse character is because somebody somewhere decided the movie needed it to sell. That's garbage.

I draw the line at the curb based on the content of the movie - including script, acting, scenes and story.

Kill Bill is meant to deliver a grotesque nasty visual of body parts because it is of the horror/gore genre. Add to it the fantastic acting, and it automatically gets moved it into a different category. It is definately one for the fans.

Bob O
11-30-2003, 10:59 PM
I just saw Bad Santa and it was a very funny movie.
The movie was profane and had a person acting very bad in a Santa outfit. And while it was funny and will make money, after seeing it there is no doubt that no company owned by a company known for family films like Disney should have been involved in a film like this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!