Would Walts Disney release a film like this???

[Bob O]

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]

Never

 

[wdwguide]

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]

Completely off track here. This is John Ritter's last film.

 

[KNWVIKING]

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]

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.

 

[KNWVIKING]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[KNWVIKING]

***"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]

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]

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]

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...

 

[raidermatt]

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]

***"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]

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]

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]

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.