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

[JeffJewell]

Man, johare, you really hated Atlantis!

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

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

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

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

[All Aboard]

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

 

[johare]

JJ:

johare appears to have enjoyed Atlantis slightly more than I did. No story, no character development, all the cave scenes that looked like they were animated right on top of promo art... Atlantis is the hollowest shell of a movie that I've ever seen

Well said. Does this mean that you thought Osmosis Jones was better than Atlantis?

Yoho:

I have yet to see Atlantis, but from what I've heard from some of the Animation/Comic Artist Experts (Sarangel) Atlantis is a triumph. It is an entirely Different Animation style from any other Disney film.

Triumph?!? Drawing the animation cells with crayons held between your toes would be an entirely different animation style, but that wouldn't make it good...or a 'triumph'. I really don't recall ever seeing an animated Disney film worse than Atlantis.

 

[All Aboard]

I really don't recall ever seeing an animated Disney film worse than Atlantis.

Ever see "Oliver & Company"?

 

[johare]

Ever see "Oliver & Company"?

Yep. It's not great but it is still better than Atlantis! Maybe if I look hard enough I can find a 'direct-to-video' Disney film which is worse...

 

[JeffJewell]

Does this mean that you thought Osmosis Jones was better than Atlantis?

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

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

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

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

Jeff

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Jeff!! I'm surprised at you!! You said:

I'm similarly mystified that Atlantis could be called a "triumph" of animation.

Those people that call it a "triumph", are enchanted by the Disney name!! If Dreamworks' name would have been in the credits those same people would have dismissed it for the sub-par drivel it is!

Just a thought! Keep smiling!!

 

[DisDuck]

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

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

I give the credit for trying something different.

 

[Peter Pirate]

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

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

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


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

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

 

[JeffJewell]

I keep reading the allusions but I don't know who around here blindly says its good because Disney is on the label.

...what, you think a few locked threads will keep me from naming names?

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

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

I've pretty much given up on trying to objectively define Disney Magic in such a way that we can all agree on it; I now have my own definition based on objective measures, and I'm happy enough with that. Greg might not _agree_ with me that lacking immersive theming automatically relegates the All-Stars to "less than Disney Magic" status, but I'll pretty much guarantee that he understands what I mean with that definition. I think he'd likely be able to accurately guess my estimation of the "Disney Magic" inherent in new projects based on the reasons I've given for my previous judgements.

I don't know who around here blindly says its good because Disney is on the label

As far as I could ascertain, you said precisely that in the hotel staff thread. Even your own example of the Yankees having "something about them" should be a tip-off: not everyone feels there is anything special at all about the Yankees (except they seem to have more to spend on players).

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

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

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

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

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

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

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


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

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

 

[Peter Pirate]

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

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

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

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

 

[Another Voice]

Sorry all - another long one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[YoHo]

Hey AV, the link went dead.

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

 

[Peter Pirate]

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

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

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

 

[Lesley]

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

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

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

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

 

[All Aboard]

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

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

 

[SPAGo 98]

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

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