The Disney Thread - Page 16

Another thing about Beauty and the Beast that irks me:  So Maurice gets attacked by wolves in the forest. Belle leaves temporarily and gets attacked by wolves in the forest.  Beast is aware of this.  But when he lets her go, he doesn't provide a fucking escort or something through the woods to make sure she doesn't get ripped apart on her way home?  At least go with her to help her find her dad, and then put her in that spider-carriage thing that he threw Maurice in.  

It would've been a funny bit to have her riding through the woods and to come across the wolves again, only for them to tuck tail and run in fear that Beast would show up again.

Maybe she went a different route or something?

I don't know.  Gaston and crew didn't run into any wolves, either.  And it looks like they get to the castle from a different route, too.  How many roads are there to get to this fucking place? 

Probably a lot, since Maurice was lost in those woods for some time. Apparently his survival instinct kicks in when his daughter needs time to get stockholm'd good and proper.

Maybe beast went out and dealt to them, in a fit of rage that wasn't considered suitably for younger audiences and so occurred off screen.

Yeah... strict story logic is not always this film's strong suit, now that I think about it.

Light bulb! : If Belle's dad was sick and Beast really wanted to prove his changed ways to her, he would've gone out there to save Maurice himself rather than leaving it to her.  I get that they needed to get her back to the village to get Gaston involved, but it would show major character growth, to have Beast go from roughly throwing Maurice around like he was insignificant to going out there to save him, carrying him back to the castle, apologizing to Maurice for the way he was treated before (because damn, Maurice looks way too fucking happy at the end to see his daughter in the arms of a guy who, to him, is a fucking psycho), and personally overseeing Maurice being nursed back to health.  It would also afford Belle the moment where her love for this guy is 100% cemented and justified, rather than looking like Stockholm Syndrome.  Her dad means the world to her, and to see Beast take such care for him when Gaston mocked him would melt her like a stick of butter on a summer's day.  Then, you have her leave.  As it stands, it's only heart-wrenching for Beast when she goes.  Belle doesn't really give a fuck, and when she says that she loves him at the end, it's a bit of a "Huh?" moment because she didn't look at all broken up about leaving the castle.  She's pumped as hell, and Beast looks to be in the friend zone at that point.  But if she's legit falling in love with this guy and is torn between wanting to be loyal to her dad and being true to her heart's desire, and she's crying and he's crying and the music swells and ugh, it could have been tragic when she left.  As it stands, it's just a "sucks to be him" moment.

I know the rose was wilting quickly and blah blah blah, but in my utopia, where this movie is a little longer and the relationship more developed, this: 

"Your dad's sick?  Okay go handle it alone." 

doesn't hold a Lumiere to this: 

"Your dad's sick?  I GOT THIS."

Just going to leave this here and see if it garners any discussion.

Man, that guy likes 'em missing one shoe.

Read an interesting article in TIME at the eye Dr's this week called "Pixar's Girl Story". I don't have a subscription, but it can be found copied & pasted elsewhere on the web. Didn't realize there was a director firing like a few other Pixar flicks before it.

Also found this silly comic strip... I wonder how they're going to incorporate her character into licensing and the princess line (if they do). She does wear a dress (willingly it seems, unlike Mulan).

Damn.  I guess we'll have to wait till March 5 to read that piece in full.

I have a TIME subscription, so I've already read the article. It's an interesting piece, and reveals something I didn't realize: Chapman is still involved in the production, attending screenings and the like. I thought she was still credited as a co-director just so Pixar didn't have an incident on their hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

I have a TIME subscription, so I've already read the article. It's an interesting piece, and reveals something I didn't realize: Chapman is still involved in the production, attending screenings and the like. I thought she was still credited as a co-director just so Pixar didn't have an incident on their hands.

Not that the firing's unusual for them, but it could get bad press considering the film's focus and Chapman's their first female director. And yeah, it was  strange to find out she still works there (unlike Chris Sanders). She must have just "stepped down". They apparently upped the action upon her removal as well. Guess they were worried about the boy demographic quadrant.
 

As I've brought up before, I remember hearing about Brenda Chapman being replaced by Mark Andrews just as I was finding out that Dreamworks had Kung Fu Panda 2 directed by a Korean-American woman.  SKI-DOOSH!

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

Read an interesting article in TIME at the eye Dr's this week called "Pixar's Girl Story". I don't have a subscription, but it can be found copied & pasted elsewhere on the web. Didn't realize there was a director firing like a few other Pixar flicks before it.

 

Also found this silly comic strip... I wonder how they're going to incorporate her character into licensing and the princess line (if they do). She does wear a dress (willingly it seems, unlike Mulan).

 

With this and The Hunger Games, it looks like 2012 is the year of the badass female with a bow and arrow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 

 

Not that the firing's unusual for them, but it could get bad press considering the film's focus and Chapman's their first female director. And yeah, it was  strange to find out she still works there (unlike Chris Sanders). She must have just "stepped down". They apparently upped the action upon her removal as well. Guess they were worried about the boy demographic quadrant.

I don't think there was any way that Sanders' firing could've been amicable enough for him to stay. From what I've read, it seems like Lasseter didn't like anything about American Dog beyond the 'animal actor gets lost' premise (and possibly that the exploration of Midwest Americana that was such a big part of the story may have been too close to Cars), which is how it ended up turning into Bolt.

From what I heard about Brave (haven't read the article yet, so I don't know if it confirms this) when it was The Bear and the Bow it was a much more girl focused Disney Princess type film, and they needed to adjust it to be more all-encompassing demographically (which of course doesn't help the Pixar Boy's Club image).

Eh, I'm honestly OK with the switch to a more action-oriented film. If you're making a film about a female archer and a bear, there should damn well be some.

Something that's always annoyed me about the response to this film is that Pixar *has* done great female characters: Jessie in Toy Story, Dory in Finding Nemo, Helen Parr/Elastigirl, EVE, and Ellie in Up are all excellent creations. All Brave is doing is putting the girl front and center.

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Eh, I'm honestly OK with the switch to a more action-oriented film. If you're making a film about a female archer and a bear, there should damn well be some.

If animation is going to move forward as an art form, filmmakers need to be more willing to risk boring their audiences. Would you have told Miyazaki to "action-up" My Neighbor Totoro?

That's not the point (also, Ellie isn't really much of a character at all). Besides the protagonists being uniformly male, there's been a lot less representation of females in Pixar, comparatively speaking. Your main character is the point of identification for the audience, and there's been only a male viewpoint up until now (The Incredibles is the only kinda/sorta exception to that). I'd venture to say that, with the possible exception of Up, any main character of a Pixar film could have been made a girl while changing very little else about the story. You progress by normalizing stuff, not by drawing attention to how progressive you're being. 

Honestly, we might be better off having this discussion after the film actually comes out and we see how the action works in context. And that's not fair to Totoro or Pixar; the former is a completely different type of film.

Regarding females in Pixar: they manage to fully realize Ellie as a character in those opening minutes of Up, and I would argue that if they hadn't, the film wouldn't work at all. I suppose I can see your point about audience identification, but I think Finding Nemo would've been a completely different film if Marlin had been a mother. The others? Eh, maybe, maybe not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 
 but I think Finding Nemo would've been a completely different film if Marlin had been a mother. The others? Eh, maybe, maybe not.

Agreed. Finding Nemo is a father/son story. Changing it to a mother/son would change the entire film. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by User_32 

Agreed. Finding Nemo is a father/son story. Changing it to a mother/son would change the entire film. 

Dory is the most enduring and endearing character from that film in a lot of folks' minds, truth be told.  All the little kids I know don't give two shits about Marlin or even Nemo.  It's Dory and the turtles.

Yeah, but still. The dynamic would be totally different if, say, Marlin and Dory's genders were flipped.

Speaking of Nemo, am I the only one who finds that one of Albert Brooks' best performances (before you ask, no I haven't seen Drive yet. Definitely want to)? He's funny in that Albert Brooks way, but he also wrings some incredible pathos out of scenes like reacting to Coral's death and promising Nemo he won't ever let anything happen to him, or "I'm sorry, Dory, but.... I do." The latter also has some of Ellen DeGeneres' best acting ever as she pleads with Marlin not to leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

 

Dory is the most enduring and endearing character from that film in a lot of folks' minds, truth be told.  All the little kids I know don't give two shits about Marlin or even Nemo.  It's Dory and the turtles.

That's fine and good but Marlin and Nemo are the heart of the story. That's why Pixar films work as well as they do (and classic Disney) Little kids love Dory for the laughs, adults love the heart of the story about the father/son relationship.
 

Ask a kid their favorite character in Wizard of Oz or Lord of the Rings and it aint' going to be Dorothy or Frodo yet without them there is no story.

Speaking of Emperor...

The Sweatbox.  The documentary about the troubled production of the film.  Has yet to be officially released.  I've been looking for this thing for a while.  See it while it's hot, since I don't imagine this link remaining online for long.

Protip: Click YouTube's shiny new download button. I did, and feel awesome for it. Will share thoughts after watching at some point.

Welp, it's down now (surprise surprise), but I watched the film. Some thoughts:

-The three big cut songs we hear portions of ("Walk the Llama", "One Day She'll Love Me", "Snuff Out The Light") are actually on the film's soundtrack. Of the three, "Snuff" is the best, a terrific villain song that, if the footage is any indication, would have been quite the showstopper.

-Thankfully, everything involving that little rock guy was cut. He certainly didn't need his own song. Kronk is a much better reluctant henchman.

-The early designs we see rough animation for are interesting, especially Yzma. And hey, they could've changed the film even more by replacing Spade and Kitt, but they didn't.

-I like that the film presents the situation as an extended version of what normally happens on films like these. Yes, this time it ends up more drastically changing the film, but you really don't get the idea that there are any particularly hard feelings about it. Even ex-director Roger Allers seems to hold no animosity towards anybody at the studio; he's clearly heartbroken, but resigned to the reality of the business.

-Sting ironically comes across as a little more petulant as he begins to visibly lose enthusiasm. He doesn't come across as a diva or anything, no, but it's clear he thought this would just be a quick little side project, and so you get where he's coming from. And I appreciated that he stuck around to do the catchy "Perfect World" number, the end credits song, and gave them a crucial note on the ending.

-Really, this doesn't come across as a hatchet job or incendiary at all. It's just very candid and brutally honest about the whole process. It'd make for a nice double feature with Waking Sleeping Beauty, actually.

-I *am* slightly disappointed they cut Yzma's verse from the new opening number. Eh, least it's here.

Fascinating stuff.

No discussion of great Pixar female characters should exclude Boo. I know she's not the main character and you could argue she's not a very well-developed character. She hardly has any dialog or much of a personality and she mostly just acts instinctively while the other more three-dimensional characters react to her.

At the same time, I think that, more than anything else, she's what makes that film work so well. Her relationship with the John Goodman character is the most important thing in it, even though Billy Crystal's character is apparently the lead. "Monsters Inc." is my favourite Pixar movie and the fact that she won't be in the sequel/prequel is the biggest reason I don't have high hopes for it.

Yeah, Chris.  I had the same thought.  This was hardly the damning indictment of the studio it was said to be.  Unless this is some chopped down version?

I loved seeing meetings in which people were ACTUALLY at work instead of trying to look like they worked in some dream factory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Yeah, Chris.  I had the same thought.  This was hardly the damning indictment of the studio it was said to be.  Unless this is some chopped down version?

 

I loved seeing meetings in which people were ACTUALLY at work instead of trying to look like they worked in some dream factory.

Actually, apparently this is a LONGER version than what ended up premiering at (I think?) a couple of film festivals.

Also, did you catch Owen Wilson as the voice of Original!Pacha? They actually show him recording part of the scene we see rough animation for (the one where "Manco" thinks Pacha is an assassin and then they discover their physical resemblance) alongside Spade.

Honestly, the last time a film like this changed SO drastically in the "we actually have some animation ready, but now we have to start almost from scratch" way was probably Aladdin. The day when Katzenberg and the other big executives screened the first version of the movie and called it a disaster is still referred to as "Black Friday" on the DVD bonus materials and in interviews. The original version of that had Aladdin's mom, two genies, Aladdin's little gang, a few more songs, and Jasmine wasn't even the love interest! Actually, it sounds like the same thing happened here: too many characters and elements fighting for screen time, so things got streamlined.

Again, change happens all the time on a film like this, but usually not quite so dramatically. Well, let me rephrase that: usually, films don't get so far along in production *without* changing dramatically from their initial inception. Look at Beauty and the Beast; the first pitched version of that was markedly different, but that only got to the story reel stage. The first warning sign in "Sweatbox" for me was when they admitted they didn't have a finished script. Yes, in the old Walt days, that was the case until 101 Dalmatians, but this is modern filmmaking now. That's one of the few good things from the Eisner/Katzenberg era that remains, I think: have a script first.

I loved that little doc. I agree that it's hardly some kind of hatchet job, but the two execs come across as basically huge pretentious morons, so I can see why they weren't fond of it. My favorite part was when they said a Pacha living alone wouldn't be "interesting" as a way to cover up their concern about the possible homosexual implications of an adult man living alone. They seem very much like the stereotypical Hollywood studio execs you imagine hampering the creative process on film projects all the time.

I thought the Sting stuff was interesting, too (although I'm no fan of his solo music), mostly because he seemed very concerned about all the right things, but it was clear that his "process" wasn't compatible with Disney's. Which he even acknowledges towards the end. I also love that villain song and was sort of stunned the original director wasn't a fan of it -- seemingly just because it didn't have a verse/chorus/verse structure. Thanks for linking to that, mcnooj.

See, I thought Schneider and Schumacher came off pretty well. Their concerns that there were too many story elements fighting for attention seems entirely legitimate; the initial idea of "a good man teaching an arrogant man how to rule" was getting buried. And what's this about the homosexual implications? I didn't get that vibe at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

See, I thought Schneider and Schumacher came off pretty well. Their concerns that there were too many story elements fighting for attention seems entirely legitimate; the initial idea of "a good man teaching an arrogant man how to rule" was getting buried. And what's this about the homosexual implications? I didn't get that vibe at all.

Well, there's no way to really judge if it was getting buried or not, because we haven't seen Kingdom of the Sun. And considering the fluffy nothing-film that is Emperor's New Groove, I imagine that a more "auteur" driven, ambitious project would at the very least be a lot more interesting, if not quite so commercially appealing in the way the execs clearly wanted. Also, I think you should watch that bit where they talk about Pacha's family again. Why should he have a family? Of all the arguments you could make about why he should have one, they just say him living alone is not "interesting." It's pretentious and deflective, designed to cover up their unwillingness to say what they're thinking out loud.

I'm usually all for believing that Disney would have some systemic bias towards avoiding any homosexual implications, but I'm gonna agree with Chris on this one.  It just seemed like the guys were worried about how much empathy an audience would really feel for a guy living on his own as opposed to having so much to lose.

But I should watch the documentary again.

Also...

FLUFFY NOTHING FILM???  You and me are DONE, JMulder.  DONE.

See, keep in mind that I love Emperor's New Groove in its final form. It's hilarious on all the important levels, and if that means sacrificing emotional depth once in a while, then so what? I'd argue it was actually MORE interesting that they moved away from the epic to a smaller-scale, wackier type of thing. Before you bring up Hercules, that still had a kind of mythological scale in the action scenes.

And to be perfectly honest, Kuzco's character arc actually still works from a dramatic standpoint for me. For example, when he saves Pacha for the first time, after gloating for a bit he immediately tries to deny it. That's surprisingly realistic for such a silly film.

Also, after hearing Sting take a stab at singing the opening song, I'm even happier they got Tom Jones to do it. Sting's fine, but it would've been the wrong type of energy to start the film with.

I LOVE Emperor's New Groove.  After the string of Disney movies that tried so hard to be big be-all-end-alls, it was great to get something fast, loose, and fun.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

I'm usually all for believing that Disney would have some systemic bias towards avoiding any homosexual implications, but I'm gonna agree with Chris on this one.  It just seemed like the guys were worried about how much empathy an audience would really feel for a guy living on his own as opposed to having so much to lose.

 

But I should watch the documentary again.

 

Also...

 

FLUFFY NOTHING FILM???  You and me are DONE, JMulder.  DONE.

Yeah, that's probably part of it too. But I think you underrating the social stigma that surrounds grown men who live by themselves, and how often homosexuality is just attributed to them by more conventional-minded people -- i.e., the average Disney audience member. I think the execs' knee-jerk "that's not interesting" reaction is explained more readily by my take, but perhaps that's just my Disney suspicion showing through.

Also take a lesson from Pacha, mcnooj. Be more forgiving of our differences!

Cheese me-no-likey.

"On second thought, make my potatoes a salad" *Yzma blinks, cleans out ear*

"Or, to save on postage, I'll just poison him with THIS!"

"For the last time, we did not order a giant trampoline!"
"Well pal, ya should have told me that before I set it up!"

"It's DINNER time!" *dramatic thunder and lightning*

I could do this all day.

Didn't David Mamet praise the final screenplay for New Groove?

Ha!  I didn't know about Mamet's praise of the film.  That's great.  It's like his love for Galaxy Quest!

FLUFFY NOTHING, EH JMULDER??????

I LOVE Emperor's New Groove.  Such a great film.

By the way, this was removed from YouTube.  Is there anywhere else to find this doc online?

Probably a torrent or something.

Saying EMPEROR'S NEW GROOVE is fluffy is like saying Chuck Jones' LOONEY TUNES work is fluffy. More than a tad dismissive methinks. It's funny and when it's flowing, it cooks.

There are actually some Chuck Jones cartoons that are pretty sweet and sentimental. For example, "Feed the Kitty", my personal favourite cartoon short of all time.

But I agree with the comparison of "The Emperor's New Groove" to Chuck Jones shorts for being more manic and subversive than your average Disney tearjerker. It stands out from the rest of the Disney movie canon for being less melodramatic (in a good way). After the "The Lion King", I lost interest in Disney movies for awhile. "The Emperor's New Groove" was a refreshing change of pace.

An older friend of mine with a taste in movies that I have huge respect for introduced me to it, and I've been a fan ever since. I don't think I need to see the rest of David Spade's filmography to know it's the best thing he ever did (and probably the best thing he ever will do). Also, Kronk is one of the most lovably buffoonish Disney characters and one of Patrick Warburton's best roles.

I love Feed the Kitty.  LOVE IT SO MUCH.

And it's not as if Emperor's New Groove is without sweetness and sentimentality.  The relationship between Kuzco and Pacha is certainly that and the moment Kuzco accepts his fate and starts to eat grass with humility is a good moment.

edit:never mind.

You know what's been pissing me off? Disney channel runs their classic shorts in between their new hip tv shows. Not only are they trimmed for time, but their redubbed. I know it's their IP and they have the prerogative, but to me, it's disrespectful of the material that made the House of Mouse what it is today. Cut a minute or 2 of those dang kids mugging and acting sassy from the sitcom instead.

And I revisited (with my daighter) one of my childhood faves recently. THE FOX AND THE HOUND. I don't know if it's the dvd transfer or how the original was shot or xeroxed, but some process made this look kind of like ass, depending on the scene. Things out of focus, poor "compositing" (halos around the linework), etc.  Walt would never let this quality get past. The animal animation is often exquisite though. The final bear fight is one of my top animated scenes ever. And some of the character work is clearly done by Bluth or Bluth-associates (YEP: They actually resigned mid-production).