Would Walts Disney release a film like this???

[Douglas Dubh]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

***"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]

And obviously the movie is not for you. And we need to get the idea of "pretend" here.

 

[KNWVIKING]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?