Cool News
Robogeek's Look at Disney's TARZAN
Well, Robogeek in one of his recent product testing missions decided to take a look at that cool as hell animated character.... TARZAN that Disney is coming out with this Summer. What's he think about it? Well, look and see.
ROBOGEEK TACKLES THE TROUBLE WITH "TARZAN" -- AND TOUTS TREATMENT!
During a recent trip to the West Coast branch of the
private work-in-progress test screening of Disney's forthcoming animated feature
"Tarzan," due in theaters June 18. It sort of happened by accident.
See, after watching the beguiling Justine Shapiro on
Planet" one afternoon, I headed down the hall to a Hong Kong Cavaliers rehearsal
and sat in on drums. During the ice cream social which followed, I started chatting
film with Perfect Tommy and Reno Nevada. Upon hearing us talk about "Princess
Mononoke," Scooter joined us and said, "You know, that 'Tarzan' trailer sure looks
cool. Think the movie will be as good as it looks?"
Reno exchanged a brief look with Perfect Tommy, handed me his
said, "Let's find out."
Taking the hint, I called up Sir Etch-a-Sketch, and we scheduled an impromptu
rendezvous. After late night doughnuts, we embarked stealthily into the night, to
the Disney Dominion. The whole place was quiet as a tomb, which made the Mouse House
all the more creepy. Sinister, even.
Sketchy, as I call him, first treated us to a rough assembly of the _original_
opening sequence to "Tarzan," which you will probably never see. Basically, during a
storm, we witness the baby Tarzan's parents slaughtered in their jungle tree house
by... well, I shouldn't really give that away. Mainly we _hear_ the horrifying
action, which we only catch terrifying glimpses of, illuminated by flashes of
lightning once the candle is blown out. The sequence is extremely dramatic and
evocative, but would have probably killed any chance of the film getting a "G"
rating. Still, someday it'd be great to have on a collector's edition DVD
(hint-hint).
Then we got to see "Tarzan" in its entirety, though the print we saw was a rough
work-in-progress -- a mix of finished animation, pencil animation, and storyboards,
with completed dialogue but partial sound mix and temp track. It was by no means the
most current version of the film; since we put Sketchy on the spot with our
unnanounced request to take a peek at the film, it was the best he could do on such
short notice, but it was good enough.
[NOTE: Given the state of the film I saw, this is not going to be a formal
review; that will wait until I see the completed release version. Instead, this will
be is a reflection on my primary impressions.]
"Tarzan" is a damn good movie that's within reach of being a truly great film.
It's the perfect example of what bugs the hell out of me with Disney.
Let's get right to it. First off, let me just say that I like Rosie O'Donnell. In
fact, I like her a lot. I watch her show regularly (George Lucas guests Wednesday).
I admire and respect her, particularly for her work on behalf of children, for
breast cancer awareness, and for her enthusiastic ambassadorship of Broadway
theater. I consider myself a fan.
And while I don't quite have as high a level of respect and admiration for her
acting abilities (though she did a damn fine job on "Ally McBeal" last week), I find
her singing, well, terrifying. In fact, whenever she starts singing on her show, I
find myself reflexively changing the channel, and then popping back to see if the
coast is clear.
Simply put, Rosie O'Donnell should not be in "Tarzan." It's a case of "one of
these things is not like the other"; she sticks out like a sore thumb. I tried
really, really hard to like her work in the film, but it just doesn't fit. If I
could wave a magic wand, I would summarily remove any and all trace of her and her
buffoonish character from an otherwise great film. (I'd lose the annoying pink
elephant, too.)
Here's my thing: when those two characters are _not_ on screen, "Tarzan" is truly
great filmmaking, and exhibits the charateristics of a timeless classic. This could
have been the definitive "Tarzan" film, and one of the greatest pulp adventure films
of all time. It's that good.
But then Rosie starts yakking in a profoundly out-of-place New York accent, and
just goes on and on. Or worse, starts singing. A Dorothy Parker poem comes to mind.
The one that starts "If I had a shiny gun..." Yep.
Granted, I understand the commercial interests at work that put Rosie in this
film. The demographic she and her show appeal to are exactly the sort of audience
Disney wants to court. (In fact, I almost had a heart attack the other day when I
saw the first TV spot, which almost exclusively featured her character in some of
the worst moments of the film.) But that audience would be attracted to this movie
_anyway_, and be rewarded by an infinitely greater film if she were absent from it.
As it is, the film is not great, but rather frequently grating.
This is a far worse crime than the Eddie Murphy character in "Mulan" or the
Gilbert Gottfried parrot in "Aladdin," simply because as out-of-place, annoying and
jarring their presence was to the tone and context of those films, the films
themselves weren't robbed of greatness. For instance, "Mulan" could probably only
have been truly _great_ had a.) Mushu been cut _and_ b.) all the pointless musical
numbers had been cut as well, which would have yielded a fantastic 30-minute short
film. But I digress...
In the case of "Tarzan," however, we are taken to the brink of a true animated
epic. In fact, I _wish_ Disney would have had the guts to go all the way, pull out
all the stops, and made "Tarzan" an animated "Lawrence of Arabia" (including the
story of his travels to England, and subsequent return to the jungle). It would have
been _awesome_. Still, I'd more than settle for Disney to make just a handful of
changes before they release it, though I know that's probably not going to happen.
What continues to confound me is Disney's weird case of cognitive dissonance.
Look no further than the "teaser" trailers for the films, and then compare them to
the film themselves. They know how what movies people _want_ to see, but don't have
the nerve to deliver them. Ask yourself, which movie would I rather see -- the one
that first trailer promised, or the one these new TV spots are delivering? Uh-huh. I
thought so.
Some of you may think ol' Robo's a stick-in-the-mud party pooper. "Lighten up,
Robo, it's a kiddie cartoon!" WHY? Have you READ Burroughs' original "Tarzan"
stories? They ain't for kids! They're pretty hard-core! Tarzan kicks a lot of ass!
Granted, there's plenty to love in this film. Glen Keane's Tarzan (voiced by Tony
Goldwin) is one of the coolest animated characters ever designed and executed. It's
a fantastic piece of work. But the character who really impressed me was Minnie
Driver's performance as Jane, who may prove to ultimately be my favorite animated
Disney leading lady to date. She's irresistable, and very funny. Lance Henriksen and
Glenn Close each bring impressive depth and humanity to Tarzan's adoptive ape
parents, and give really moving, resonant performances. Phil Collins' musical
contributions are pretty good as well, his songs serving as Tarzan's interior
dialogue.
And, overall, the film is lushly animated, with some wonderful 3D backgrounds
used to exhilarating effect as Tarzan swings through the jungle, followed with
break-neck speed by a dynamic camera POV. Still, the integration between the
traditional hand-drawn animation and the 3D CG isn't quite there; it's not as
accomplished as the work done in, say, "Princess Mononoke" (the release of which
I'll have an update on soon). But there are some sequences that are absolutely
incredible, like Tarzan's battle with... well, you'll know it when you see it.
(Though I wish Tarzan actually knew _exactly_ who it was he was fighting in this
scene; it would be all the more resonant if he did.)
There are some nitpicks and criticisms here and there. For instance, the fact
that the antagonist is named Clayton -- which any Burroughs fan knows is the name of
Tarzan's brother. Even more confounding is a sort of mass-personality change that
happens to all of Clayton's men in the third act that comes out of nowhere. And we
never get to hear "me Tarzan, you Jane." But no matter.
Substantively, there are a few key things that keep this movie from being great
-- and they are things that could actually be fixed, to a degree. We all know that
it's metaphysically impossible for Disney to remove Rosie from the film at this
point, but there are other options, which I hereby humbly submit for consideration
by The Powers That Be...
HOW I WOULD CHANGE "TARZAN" IN SIX EASY STEPS
HOW TO MAKE A REALLY GOOD FILM ALMOST GREAT
(WARNING: CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS)
STEP ONE -- REDO ROSIE
Since we can't eliminate her from the film altogether, I would bring Rosie back
to the recording studio to redo her dialogue (almost all of it) and instruct her to
tone it down a notch (or ten). With some astute direction, she could be quite
tolerable, and even good. Honestly, in its current state, her work doesn't just keep
the film from being great -- it comes close to ruining it for me. Seriously. This
one element of the film will keep it from being a timeless classic, and hopelessly
dates it. I _wish_ her character design could also be redone, to bring it more in
line with the other apes (which are _fantastic_), but I know there's no way.
However, there's no reason why Disney can't have her
tone down her dialogue (at least some of it), cut her extraneous dialogue, and even
reduce her screentime. For example...
STEP TWO -- DROP THE "STOMP" MUSICAL NUMBER
Oh, God, oh, God, OH, GOD!!! This is absolutely one of the worst sequences ever
committed to celluloid. Remember how I complained about the "Playing With The Big
Boys" number in "The Prince of Egypt"? This is far, _far_ worse. It is horrifyingly
dreadful. It absolutely _kills_ the narrative flow dead in its tracks (which, up
until this point, is really clicking), and completely jars with the tone of the
film.
Besides, if nothing else, the whole "Stomp" gimmick has been done to death --
care to count the commercials? -- and is incredibly passé. This scene is dated
before it even hits the screen. Lose it. It has no inherent value, and detracts from
the film. Half the audience will flee to the concession stand. (While I was watching
it, everyone was _begging_ Sketchy to fast-forward. They absolutely couldn't stand
it.)
I can't possibly overstress how awful and downright embarrassing this sequence
is. You could easily cut from the beginning of the scene -- when the animals start
playing around with items in the camp -- to the aftermath when they're confronted.
We don't need to see what's in between to get the gist of what transpired. And
you'll save every audience member an enormous amount of needless, unjustified pain,
while maintaining the otherwise excellent pacing of the film.
Let me put it more simply, paraphrasing the afore-mentioned Ms. Parker: this is
not a scene to be tossed aside lightly -- it should be thrown with great force. If I
could do only _one_ thing to the film, this would be it.
STEP THREE -- LOSE THE "PERISCOPE ELEPHANT TRUNK" SCENE
ARGH!!! This scene (and accompanying sonar sound effects) _really_ pissed me off.
It's a POV periscope shot through the pink elephant's trunk. ARGH!!! That makes no
SENSE! It's too damn CARTOONY! It's incredibly ANNOYING! It's, it's... ARGH!!! What
the hell were they THINKING? It's bad enough that we are supposed to believe that
the elephant can swim up to the ship and then somehow manage to climb aboard (anyone
care to explain how?), but this is, in the words of El Cosmico, "beyond the line."
Absolutely intolerable. Cut it. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!!
STEP FOUR -- RECOLOR THE PINK (MAGENTA?) ELEPHANT
Okay, this is nitpicky, but let's think about it for a sec. Jane's dad is leading
an expedition to study "exotic" gorillas in the wild. But when they come upon a pink
elephant, no one bats an eye. Huh? What? Jeez... This is worse than the blue ants in
"A Bug's Life."
See, everything in the film _except_ Rosie's character and the pink elephant are
designed with consistent realism. But these two characters
stand out like sore thumbs because they're so goddammed... cartoony. If I had heat
vision, I'd burn them off the screen.
Sure, I know merchandisers will riot if you make the elephant a normal color, but
couldn't someone with digital color correction technology at least make it _less_
pink? Please? Pretty please? And while you're at it, trim as much pink elephant
stuff as you can. (Refer to Step Three.)
STEP FIVE -- FIX THE ENDING [MAJOR SPOILER!!!]
I _hate_ giving so much away about the film, but it's for the Greater Good -- and
there's simply no way around it. Basically, after a touching scene where Jane's
father helps her realize she belongs in the jungle with Tarzan -- a scene with
depth, humanity, and real emotion -- he then suddenly resolves to also stay behind,
out of the blue.
Three problems here: 1.) he has no compelling reason for this decision, which
summarily deflates the impact of Jane's; 2.) it serves no constructive narrative
purpose, comes out of nowhere, and doesn't even make sense; 3.) it has exceedingly
uncool post-film narrative repercussions -- that is to say, how romantic is the idea
of Tarzan and Jane in the jungle once they're stuck with... her DAD? That SUCKS!
And, to add insult to injury, the end of the film has an offensively _ridiculous_
shot of Jane's dad swinging through the jungle in Fred Flintstone garb. GODDAMN!!!
What the hell? Send him on his way back to Merry Ol' England, and leave Tarzan and
Jane in secluded romantic bliss. There. A perfect ending. (Actually, I'm praying
this has already been changed; what I saw was only animated storyboards, so
hopefully the filmmakers came to their senses on this one.)
STEP SIX -- NEVER _EVER_ GIVE AWAY THE DEFINING MOMENT OF THE FILM
I was _so_ worried that the trailer would close with it, and was enormously
relieved that it didn't. Save it. Keep it a secret. No one should know. It will
_kill_ people. It will be one of greatest, most legendary film moments of all time.
Every man who was a boy -- everyone who read Burroughs as a kid and wanted to be
Tarzan -- will _die_ when this moment comes. I cried, and I wasn't alone. It's
powerful stuff. But it's far more powerful if you keep it a secret, and follow all
the previous instructions. (And it'd be even more potent if Rosie's character didn't
immediately start yapping after it occurs, which immediately destroys the awesome
resonance of the scene.)
BUT ROBO, ISN'T IT TOO LATE TO DO ANY OF THIS?
Not necessarily (although I'm not holding my breath). It's six weeks until
"Tarzan" is scheduled for release June 18 -- one month after "The Phantom Menace"
opens.
Personally, I would consider pushing "Tarzan"'s release back to the July 4th
weekend. The more I hear about "Wild Wild West," the more convinced I am that
"Tarzan" could beat it head-to-head -- especially if it underwent even one or two of
the changes I outlined above. Sure, the promotional partners and merchandisers would
throw a little fit at the delay, but ultimately they'd all be better off.
See, I actually think "Tarzan" will have a better chance of opening at Number One
on July 2 then it will on June 19, when "The Phantom Menace" will have only been out
for four weeks. I mean, _think_ about it -- this is STAR WARS we're talking about
here. It could make half-a-billion domestic by the July 4th weekend on its way to
over three billion worldwide when all is said and done.
Does anyone really think any other movie has a chance at the Number One spot at
the box office within the first month of "The Phantom Menace" opening?
Just something to think about...
Anyway, after the screening was over, Sketchy got a gleam in his eye and said,
"So you want to see something really cool?"
We shook off our slumber and asked, in unison, "Like what?"
He giggled, and soon we were watching four of the five new sequences from
"Fantasia 2000" (two complete, two incomplete), the entire opening sequence of
"Dinosaur," tantalizing glimpses of "Atlantis," and a horrifying peek at "Llama,
Llama" -- er, I mean, "Kingdom of the Sun."
But I'll save that for another report.
-
P.S.: ROBO-STUFF ON SALE AT EBAY! Want a genuine piece of AICN history? Well, I'm
doing some spring cleaning over on eBay this week. Bidding closes today (around 11am
PST / 2pm EST) on my
Duo 2300c and
DuoDock Plus bundles. (Who knows what secrets still linger on their hard
drives?) And bidding has just opened on my
Hi8 camcorder. Visit my
for info on these and future Robo-auctions!
-
+ Expand All
-
Its sad that merchandising rules the design and execution of movies these days. But why is it that animated films are the ones most hurt by it? Why does no one have the courage to make a great film, they come close but then bend over and let the marketing division have their way with them.
If a movie is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator to appeal to kids, then the kids will out grow the film and will not relate to it later in life. This is bad for Disney and the others because it will seriously cut the re-release and video sales of the films. Why do people still go to see the old classics when they are re-released? Because they were not dumbed down. Why do the videos still sell so well? Because they were not dumbed down.
Go ahead and take the quick route to money in the merchandise, but your shooting yours selves in the head in the long run.
-
Hey, all...
"Moriarty" here.
I know exactly which cut Robo saw of the film, and can report with absolute confidence that with the exception of one shot (not scene -- shot), the film he saw is identical in content to the one you'll see in the theater. Disney screened the finished film for us at ShoWest, with all its strengths and flaws still firmly in place.
I don't think I liked the picture as much as Robo, even with the changes. I think it suffers from a terribly soft second half. Everything up to what Robo calls the "defining moment" of the film is pretty darn good. After that, the whole affair's hit and miss.
I don't think Disney's going to put any more time or money into this because as it stands right now, the film is good enough. By that, I mean it played through the roof to a relatively undemanding crowd at ShoWest. They wanted a good-looking Disney movie with Tarzan in it, and that's what they got. They weren't looking for an epic or for the definitive treatment, and that's exactly what they didn't get. The general public will not echo the sentiments of hardcore animation fans, and since it's the general public that Disney is really selling to, we're out of luck.
But, hey... there's always IRON GIANT! ;)
"Moriarty" out. -
Hi. I'm probably going to get flamed for being too "politically correct (a term people have a tendency to cry when they disagree with people who talk about common cultural courtesy)," but Tarzan is one of the most stereotypical, damaging to the world's view of Africa creations that have ever been made. We in African Studies have been cringing when it comes to Tarzan for years. So of course Disney chooses to make it one of its dumbed down films. It's a real shame that after Mulan, a film that took care to take a story from Chinese culture and to be respectful of Chinese culture, Disney chose to do this Tarzan shit. I don't care how good (or bad) the film is, I'm not going to be able to watch it without seeing this particular aspect of Tarzan--the disrespectful, imperialist outlook. Africa is soooo full of stories. Why not do the Epic of Sundiata or a telling of Anansi the Spider Man. Why Tarzan? It truly is annoying.
-
I know you know the answer to this before I even type it, but you know as well as I why Disney could not and probably will not for some time do a traditionally African folk tale. I mean, when they last visited Africa, they combined elements of "Hamlet" and "Richard III," two stories, timeless as they are, but already lodged in the Western mindset. Hell, when they did "Simba's Pride," it was just a rather inconsistent version of "Romeo and Juliet." Tarzan, for all its original racism and imperialism, is not going to be some sort of dogmatic un-PC film, not from Disney - oh, no. If you go back, the original Nancy Drew books were incredibly racist (you can still find them on some old library's shelves), but the current incarnation is far from the original Stratemeyer creation. Unfortunately, you may have a point as this pic may send some people back to the Burroughs texts and they might get the wrong idea here and there, but like kids today reading Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" or "Lord Jim" (or actually, a number of other Conrad texts), I don't think they will be so negatively influenced as the West once was by such things. I think the Ace Ventura sequel was far more awkward than anything that will be in the "Tarzan" pic. -Smilin' Jack Ruby
-
I always get the feeling from reading Harry's posts and the Talk Back, that if some of the exec's actually read this, there would be some change. Someone at Disney should feel really awkward reading these posts and talkbacks. I know that Harry has said that major studios read this, but it would be great if someone would respond to the criticism raised here.
Sorry for poor language. -
First off, I will see TARZAN when it comes out. Whoa. The last time I said that about a Disney film was when I begged my mom to take me to see THE FOX AND THE HOUND, back in '82 or so. I'm not a major Disney fan (I couldn't even compile a list of my favorites), but I will see TARZAN because I have enjoyed the original Edgar Rice Burroughs novels. I've also enjoyed the various film incarnations (pretty much anything except the horrible Bo Derek version and the truly atrocious TARZAN AND THE LOST CITY with Casper Van Dien). From what I've seen of the Disney version, I'm there. I do wish the Mouse House had the guts to show the origins of TARZAN though. Aside from the film GREYSTOKE, Tarzan movies usually ignore the crucial beginnings of the Lord of the Jungle. I wish Di$ney would go for a hard PG rating, at least as an experiment. Take out the cutsie-poo sidekicks (which I loathe), cut a few songs (which I also loathe), add more animation, and turn it into a PG rated film. Oh well. That's my two cents anyway. Now I'm back to reality.
-
Going Back to Tarzan, a franchise thats been terribly milked since like the beginning of movies, is such a dumb thing to do.
Better options would be to make a movie based on The Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata...these stories are amazing...they stand out as one of the most definitive pieces of Indian literature, and are true stories too. I wish Disney execs would drop stuff like Tarzan and search for better stories..there are many more out there. -
This saddens me, the news that in what will be a symphony of a movie there will be one horn (named Rosie O'Donnell) which will be consistently out of tune. I have no idea what it's like inside of Disney Studios, but it looks like every animated film is now a tug-of-war between two factions: those interested in making a timeless classic with a strong plot and memorable characters, and those interested in selling toys. It's a shame because Disney has broadened their horizons in the past decade, taking from classic Western fables (THE LITTLE MERMAID and BEAUTY AND THE BEAST) to great works of literature (TARZAN, HUNCHBACK, and POCOHONTAS) to Shakespeare (THE LION KING) and non-Western stories (ALADIN, THE LION KING again, and MULAN). Their choices of material are frequently bold. Where they falter, though, is when they savage the story to play down to the audience (HUNCHBACK, POCOHONTAS, HERCULES) or chose charicatures over characters. It sounds like the creative force behind TARZAN was on the right track, taking a serious approach to a great work of literature, but they were derailed by the marketing department that wanted a star kids would recognize, no matter how inappropriate for the film she was.
-
Going Back to Tarzan, a franchise thats been terribly milked since like the beginning of movies, is such a dumb thing to do.
Better options would be to make a movie based on The Indian epics Ramayana and Mahabharata...these stories are amazing...they stand out as one of the most definitive pieces of Indian literature, and are true stories too. I wish Disney execs would drop stuff like Tarzan and search for better stories..there are many more out there. -
... boy did it piss me off. I usually don't gve a rats ass about anything that disney animation does, but this comercial got to me for some reason. I don't even care about this film, but when I saw those smart mouth, sassy, in your face, apes dancing and singing, and their STYLED GREASER-LIKE HAIR (well at least the hair on their head) I just felt ill. Is that all Disney can do? Musical kiddy versions of non-kiddy stories, and half ass suporting characters that are "in your face" or "sassy", but still watered down enough that they aren't offensive? (well not to holy rollers anyway, They sure are offensive to me) Disney is the least creative force in the industry. The guys working on the films for them are fine. Give them free reign and I'm sure we could get some good animated films. Their creativity is just crushed by the corperate requirements that every Disney movie has to be the same. Singing and dancing and nothing naughty or offensive. This comercial just sealed my opinion that Disney, as a corperate giant, thinks it is too big to take any risks and therefore has to make everything as simple and basic as they can.
P.S. They didn't use Shakespear for The Lion King. Maybe Kimba the White Lion did, but I'm sure Disney had no idea that Shakespear was involved when they ripped Kimba off. -
Look. Tarzan never, but _never_, says "Me Tarzan, you Jane," except in misquotations. (I think! If he does, prove it.)
I'll see Tarzan, and enjoy the glimpses of what animation _can_ achieve (someday.) -
Robogeek - Excellent. Your suggestions were well-thought out practical - and if the Disney execs would wake up and worry about making truly great movies rather than great profits, it would make a lot of fans very happy. Your point about the "cognitive dissonance" was especially good - they know EXACTLY the kind of movie we want to see - and they give it to us in the trailers. But somewhere along the way, they always fall back on the formula - zany sidekicks, pink elephants, and more "comic" relief. Oh well. Epsilon3 - Before I react too negatively to your post (although my initial impression is that you're being a little hypersensitive (hey, just being honest)), I'd like to ask you to flush out your ideas a little more. What exactly about Tarzan makes it so offensive to you - is it just b/c it's set in Africa but the story itself isn't African? I am genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say.
-
Mushu wasn't my favorite character from Mulan either, but both of my kids LOVED him. They love all the parts you would label "cartoony" and I'm glad they put those aspects in for my kids. There are so few movies out there for kids under 8 and there are so many choices for adults. In other words, if the cartoony parts bug you, don't watch. Disney movies should be for kids first.
-
I have to write a 10-page term paper comparing TARZAN OF THE APES and HEART OF DARKNESS. Anyone got any good thesis ideas? BTW, Disney is my most hated studio. I hope this movie bombs. Im gonna see this but i wont pay for it. Im only seeing it because ive never seen a Tarzan movie and i just read the novel. The singing comic sidekicks, the overflowing-with-attitude henchmen, the nauseating Elton John songs....In an era of cookie-cutter movies, Disney is the worst. They cant stray one inch from their precious formula. DEATH TO EISNER!
-
Yo, Megatron. While yes, "Lion King" ripped off "Kimba" (funniest
"Simpsons" reference yet), I was speaking on the plot (physically flawed fellow murders his way to the crown, son fights father's killer to regain crown) which is damn old and quite frankly, older than Shakespeare, though I honestly believe that Disney had Shakespeare in mind. Also, to another poster who mentioned the hope of Disney doing the "Mahabharata," wonder a: could they squeeze such an epic into a less-than-two-hour cartoon b: will I live to see the day when a Disney exec has such a brainstorm and c: would they bring in Peter Brook? Jesus, if only. Also, can you imagine the songs? Maybe, just maybe Peter Gabriel came along and organized the thing, it wouldn't turn into total shit. But again, what's the likelihood of that. I know I'm being completely absurd, but wouldn't it be nice? What next? Disney presents "Tyl Eulenspiegel?" -
This is to partly answer a question directed to someone else. I recently read Burroughs' first Tarzan book, and was rather saddened by the grotesque caricatures of the African people in it. They were 99 % cannibals, the warriors having teeth filed to points. They were totally savage and stupid, and of course, superstitious. I'm not talking about a mild, cultural insensitivity of the time -- early 1900's. I'm talking severely offensive.
-
Inago Montoya put this whole discussion into perspective with his post. Disney makes animated films for kids and their families and for grown people who are still kids at heart, not overrun and oozing with cynicism. I thought that Katzenberg was supposed to be the guy who satisfied all of you guys who want more "adult" animation. He didn't do it with POE, he chickened out, he couldn't stray completely away from the formula that he helped to create. Let's hope that Brad Bird and IG break the mold for you guys. Let Disney do what they do best.
-
Disney produces some of the few films kids of all ages and watch repeatedly and enjoy, and they're good enough that their parents, older siblings, or whoever's taking them aren't bored (boy was I bored in Rugrats, and Quest for Camelot was pretty dang forgetable). We older people get cool movies like Out of Sight, The Matrix, Pulp Fiction, etc..
-
Well, my fellow geeks (and geekettes), Disney has done it again. They've taken an animated film that could have been near-great, run it through their corporate machine and left us with yet another piece of bland garbage fit only for burning.
In an earlier post, Jonte wondered if any execs from The Mouse looked in on AICN postings from time to time. My reply is, what does it matter? If anyone from Disney does check out this site all they see are a bunch of cranky geek/fanboys who make up a minute portion of the paying audience. Do any of you folks really think the suits are impressed by our heartfelt views on the state of animation today? No chance! All they know is they've got a winning formula with their Little Mermaids, Lion Kings, et al. (all of which royally sucked, by the way) and they're going to keep on grinding them out like so many bad sausages
until their profits dry up. Disney creates movies for people like fellow poster Inago Montoya - people who not only tolerate, but positively demand that Disney cartoons be heavily loaded with the very bogies that give the rest of us the dry heaves: sloppy sentimentality, offensively stupid talking-animal sidekicks and those awful, brain-curdling musical numbers that usually stop the narrative dead in its tracks.
No, my friends. Disney is a lost cause in that respect. The next evolution in animation is going to come from elsewhere. As for me, yes, in spite of my rant I'm going to see Tarzan...I'll be the guy at the back of the theatre sobbing his heart out every time %%%###!!!! Rosie O'Donnell makes her appearance. Death to Disney!!! -
I have no problem with the choice of Tarzan as a subject for a cartoon, though I do think that the Mahabarata wound be cool too. My major gripe is with Disney's choice of songwriters! I mean, who are these people? Pop stars, yes, but ones with an understanding of telling a story through songs? How much dramatic material has Peter Gabriel done since Lamb Lies Down on B'way?
The last Disney score with truly exceptional songs was Aladdin, and the good songs in that were a result of the Ashman/Mencken collaboration. After Ashman died, and his death is a great loss to theater and film, Disney hasn't produced a truly distinguished lyric. Some of Schwartz's work for Hunchback was ok, but most of it was sanctimonious and flat, without the verbal effervescence of even his early works, Godspell or Pippin. On the other hand, Menken acquitted himself well-- but that's only half the story.
There's no point in producing MUSICAL cartoons if you don't have a score worth a damn, and I can point to two young composers and lyricists whose work is ten times better than anything D's done in years. Why can't I, or anyone I know, remember a song from Mulan? Because they were worse than mediocre-- they stood in the way of the drama. And not in some political Brechtian way...they just sucked.
Get the point, Disney-- great songs make a musical great. Otherwise, they go the way of the Black Cauldron and The Rescuers Down Under.
-
First of all Mr Montoya, great moniker. Second, kids like these characters because tv tells them they are supposed to. When you and I were kids ourselves (I'll assume here since you have a small child, you are between 25 and 40) Disney didn't feel the need for lame sidekicks that made fart noises. Although they often strayed FAR from their source material, films like Jungle Book, Lady and the Tramp, Alice in Wonderland and the Aristocats never resorted to throwing in characters purely for the sake of merchandising. The problem, of course, lies with us. We've become so attuned to the soundbite, the 15 second commercial and the 3 minute MTV video "movie" that our children have attention spans meassured in nanoseconds. A very curious observation I've made (from watching my friends kids and my niece and nephew) is that children who WERE NOT raised sitting in front of a TV from 3 months tend to like the OLD disney stuff better. That's why after my daughter's born in August, I plan to keep her TV viewing to a minimum until she's at least six (this according to the experts is the time when personalities are truly formed.) I'm going to do what my parents did when I was growing up; I'm going to READ to her. To be fair, I think the recent Hunchback and Beauty and the Beast have the best animation Disney's ever done with the possible exception of Pinoccio, but the stories in both were rather a bit lacking. When Alladin came out, I hated it. Don't get me wrong, I laughed like everyone else, but to me, it spelled the end of Disney's timelessness. Disney no longer trusted their stories to compel the audience to watch, and that's why we got these in-your-face comedic bafoons taking over making pop references that are dated by the time the video comes out. It saddens me. I have great hope though, in the little film from master animator Brad Bird called IRON GIANT. After Weak Weak West stumbles out, we can only hope Warners will realize it's their one hope at capturing the summer movie-goers. Someone needs to remember that these kids need their minds stimulated, rather than just their eye-balls.
-
THere are several reasons why we adult animation fans are upset at Disney. First of all, animation has the potential to be far more than a kid's medium. Yet try as they might, most companies are having a hard time making a go of more adult cartoons (and are too timid to REALLY try...the first company who does will make a fortune, frankly.) Tarzan seems to reflect that desire with a darker, more action-packed look to its trailer. Yet the movie itself is utterly "safe" and reneges on its promise. I have nothing against Disney making kiddie movies, but don't PROMISE us adult movies and then fail to deliver. More importantly, since when do ALL kids movies have to have this "wacky" stuff? Any given Disney movie before Aladdin was generally tonally consistant, with the comic relief muted and not allowed to ride rampant over the whole picture. Don't believe me, watch Beauty & the Beast again. You know, the one which was nominated for an OSCAR? There are humourous characters in that movie, but none of them take over the picture, and the result is a movie kids loved. Or look at Toy Story. That's mostly a comedy, but it's CONSISTANT. As in, it stays light and innovative. It doesn't tell a dark story and then ruin it in an attempt to keep the mood light. Pick a genre, Disney: Serious or Comical. Make a serious movie, then a humourous one. If the serious ones bomb, go back to comedy. But don't muck up a dramatic movie with stuff that belongs elsewhere. Rosie O. would be a great addition to some other movie, but not Tarzan. People are going to see this, prepared for a truly adult movie, and the vast majority will probably settle for this. But there will be more than a few dissappointed folks, methinks. On the other hand, DIsney is getting better...Tarzan is a step up from Mulan, and Fantasia 2000, Dinosaur, Treasure Planet and Atlantis signal a change in the kind of stories that are being told at Disney. In conclusion, Inigo, I appreciate that kids should have their movies, but must it be at the expense of existing stories that would have been far better served with a more consistant film? Putting a Rosie O'Donnell scat number in an original movie would be easier to take. Create your own stories, Disney, THEN screw them up.
-
All you people talking about how Disney is one of the few studios making movies 'for the children' should be ashamed of yourselves. Great kids movies come out all the time, but if they don't have the Disney brand name on them, or rip off the Disney style, they BOMB because nobody goes to see them. Case in point: Babe: Pig In The City. An absolutely brilliant film, with exactly all the things in it you would want from a kid's film, and what did it make at the box office? Fourteen bucks? Or how about the dismal failure of one of my all-time favourites, Return to Oz, which had the audacity to be truer to the original books than the bit of fluff that preceded it to the screen? How well do any of us really think Iron Giant is going to do? We all have the fantasy that WWW will die a miserable death paving the way for a $200 million bonanza for Brad Bird, but the truth is WWW will limp to $100 million+ like Godzilla and Batman & Robin before it, and Iron Giant will be lucky to hit $60 million. Why should Disney change their formula? It's all the audience will accept. You want Disney to change? Start supporting the creators outside of Disney who actually dare to try new things. I realize I'm probably preaching to the converted for the most part here, since the AICN crowd will account for half of Iron Giant's box office, but I'm very serious. The mainstream media has parents terrified of all these awful Hollywood people out to corrupt their children, and so they stick to what they know is safe: Disney. It's up to us to break the cycle. No kids of your own? Take some nieces and nephews to Iron Giant when it comes out. Buy Babe:PITC and babysit the tykes. (Hell, buy it anyway. It deserves your money.) Start demonstrating that the paranoia is unfounded and maybe, someday, we'll see that animation Golden Age we keep expecting to see just over the next horizon...
-
Give parents some credit! We don't just see Disney movies because we're afraid. We go to see Disney movies, Babe, Rugrats, Madeline, and (shudder) even the Barney movie because that's what the kids want to see, NOT because we're afraid of the movie studios will corrupt our children! Kids have a different perspective than us and to them a guy running full speed into a wall and falling flat back is hilarious and will be watched over and over again (and over again). Personally, I always make sure my kids see the quality stuff too like Buster Keaton or The Borrowers. But the whole point is, DISNEY MOVIES ARE FOR KIDS FIRST; it's what they like. Go see some Japanese animation if you want more adult oriented fare, and leave the Disney movies to the kids (and some of us adults) who like it.
-
Why only age six? I suggest that you throw out your TV entirely and never let her watch any until she can afford to but her own TV set. By then, she wont care. TV is a drug; if you never start, youll never know what youre missing. Its also pure trash. There is absolutely nothing on TV that makes you a better person. True, some educational programs might teach you something, and the simpsons is just about as entertaining as anything, but even these are not nessesary to life. The simpsons wouldnt even be funny if you never watched anything else (the show constantly pokes fun at pop culture), so even that is useless by itself. My point is, imagine how much better of a human your duaghter will be if she doesnt spend any time at all staring at the idiot box. Just take her to the movies every now and then (imagine how much cooler the movies would be if there was no such thing as TV!!). I know, everyone is gonna hate me even more now because i thrashed their precious "entertainment," but i admit it--TV can be damn entertaining. In fact, its too entertaining. I stopped wtaching TV a couple years ago, but when im really bored, ill catch a simpsons or a seinfeld or a brady buch rerun. you know what scares the hell out of me? how mezmeroized (sp!) i am by the simple flickering screen. sometimes ill catch myself watching an infomerical or a talk show for like 5 whole minutes!!! Then i slap myself, kill the tube, and go outside. Only when you stop watching TV and then start again do you realize how truly fucking annoying and insulting it is. BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY!!! IF YOU DON'T CONSUME EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD, YOU AREN'T A PROPER AMERICAN!!! no wonder our species is a cancer on this planet. capitalism + the media = massive assault on senses and values. if your kid spends too much time in front of the tube, she will start to believe that she is SUPPOSED to buy a new toy (to be better then those without it). she will believe that she is SUPPOSED to drive a better car than other people (because cars are one of teh biggest status symbols and capitalism is founded on status). she will believe that she is SUPPOSED to go to Macy's big sale because EVERYBODY is going and she would be INSANE if she didnt take advantage of these low prices because she is SUPPOSED to own those clothes no matter what so she might as well buy them now while theyre cheap. ok, i admit it, im a little over-paranoid. but i swear on everything holy that we ARE in fact being brainwashed by massive corporations, and TV is their main mind-control drug. That is all.
-
While I agree that children need cartoons that cater to their particular tastes, my central complaint about Disney is not so much that the company makes stuff for kids, it's that their decades-long influence has poisoned the tastes of the American people right down to the root. In the straight and narrow minds of Middle America, it just ain't a cartoon unless it's Disney. Consequently, any animated feature that doesn't follow the tried and true Mouse Formula (sassy but safe sidekicks and schmaltzy, hack musical numbers)is doomed to fail at the box office. Disney's paint-by-numbers approach to animation narrative has stunted the growth of this art form to the point where I wonder if new approaches to "illustrated movies" will ever be accepted by in this country. Can you imagine a Tarzan where the apes didn't talk or sing? Where even Tarzan himself didn't say a word throughout the entire movie? Where the thrust of the narrative came from the animation itself? Of course you can't. Disney's monopoly on animation has poisoned the creative well for everybody.
-
Mushu in Mulan was a surprising upturn from Disney's usual spin of sidekicks. Mostly, I think Disney has only made you want to put the [drop] kick, back in sidekicks. But I was pleased by Mushu. He didn't do for sidekicks what Frollo did for villains in Hunchback of Notre Dame, but I don't think Mushu was as bad as you're saying Rosie's Ape will be. Otherwise, I agree that Mike Eisner has thrown good story-telling out the window in favor of the almighty dollar. Pity, I think Walt would have wanted it to be good.
Oh, Robogeek, one more thing. If you liked Minnie Driver, she's also in the "Princess Mononoke" english-dubbed version. -
Don't you get PBS where you live? Shows like NOVA, Frontline, and Sesame Street are all worth watching. There are also a variety of good children's programs (well, aside from Barney) that manage to entertain without talking down to kids or being relentless commercials for some lame toy line. The History Channel and A&E also have good stuff for older kids and adults alike.
-
The truth is, the whole arguement of whether Disney should make more adult fare isn't really valid anymore. Disney has their production schedule mapped out for at least the next 5 years. If all of you Disney bashers can just suffer through Kingdom of the Sun (man, if Tarzan is getting this much flack, I shudder to think how much THAT will get), you'll notice some changes at the Mouse house. Robogeek mentioned, Dinosaur, Atlantis, and Fantasia 2000. They are set to branch off from the Disney formula. I've even heard Atlantis won't have any songs (Though POE wasn't supposed to either, was it? Hope Disney doesn't wuss out like Katzenberg did) My point is, to criticize Disney for continually catering to children is a futile effort, because I believe they are taking the necessary steps to remedy that. But due to the long animation process, we just won't see it for a year or two. The Rosie-less scenes in Tarzan seem like a nice start (I totally agree with Robogeek and his suggestions...except for the color of the elephant. That's getting a little picky. Sheesh!)
-
Hey, any guy that can kick the crap out of Sean Connery in "Tarzan's Greatest Adventure" is one tough Tarzan in my book! Ahhhhhhhaaaaaahhhhhhaaahhhhhh!!!
-
I do hope that Mononoke will usher in a new era of more "adult"-aimed animation--films that can coexist with GOOD Disney films (by which I mean flix that do not merely regurgitate the tried-n-true formula). Of course Disney films are for kids, and I don't have a problem with that. HOWEVER, I think they ought to be something adults can enjoy without cringing (that means no god damn Mushu-like sidekicks or talking gargoyles). Older Disney films are not just "kids'" films, they are FAMILY films. That means that an adult such as myself can sit through Snow White, Bambi, etc, without having my intelligence insulted. Disney films do not need to pander to be entertaining.
-
Why is everyone being so hard on Disney and Tarzan?
Mind you, I feel that Disney needs to experiment with more "mature" animation, but they still put out a good film year after year.
Aside from The Phantom Menace, Austin Powers, adn Eyes Wide Shut, Tarzan is the only other summer movie I really want to see this year.
I think the era will come when Disney does abandon the formula they've used from "The Little Mermaid" on, but are probably afraid too (remember how much flack Hunchback took? A villain motivated by lust...How dare they!)
The reason Prince of Egypt didn't recieve parental concerns was because of its religous overytones.
Disney will forever make movies for the entire family to enjoy, and they will eventually disolve the Broadway-style their currently using. For those hoping for soemthing more akin to Japanese Animation, sorry but it won't (and shouldn't) happen. -
This has always confused me. If a film is bad all they have to do is say "oh its a kids movie". Well Babe and Pig in the City are kids movies, but I loved them (and I'm 23). Why? Because they were smart, yet still suitable for kids. Another thing that confuses me is why people think that all Japanese Animation is for adults. The Miyazaki films are Japanese, and all better than anything Disney has put out in the last thirty years. I grew up watching SCTV, early SNL, Loony Tunes, Macross (perverted into Robotech), and Star Blazers. My parents didn't stop me from liking some stupid things, but they also exposed me to other more intelligent things that challenged me. Disney films don't challenge kids anymore. They cater to their lowest interests, rather than sparking new ones. I never said that Disney had to make adult films, but that doesn't mean that they have to make stupid films. It amazes me that the Hobbit was originally written for kids. Look at how low our expectations of our children have fallen since then.
-
I'm really disappointed that Disney didn't stay faithful to the book- which means more Tarzan and no Rosie.
-
But isnt Clayton the name of Jane's jilted fiance?
-
Those rodents at Disney screwed up again. What they need to do is make an animated version of Bolero. That's where I think Bo Derek really hit her stride. Not Tarzan the Ape Man. I'm sorry but she was just a little forced. Who's with me! In conclusion, Bolero should be made into the big Disney animated megaflick, not the mediocre Tarzan.
-
I'm going to try to keep this short (I have a tendency to be prolixic), but in response to the question as to why I don't like Tarzan, here goes: Tarzan embraces all of the stereotypes of Africa that have been promoted by imperialist, colonialist people since the Portuguese first rounded the Cape. First, having young Greystoke be raised by "savage apes (a phrase from the books)" implies that there were no people in the "African jungle" to find a lost baby and raise him. The only Africans who show up in Tarzan novels, movies, etc. are cannibles or other stereotypes. All of Africa in these books is untamed jungle (in reality, Africa is about 25% jungle, maybe). The whole question of Tarzan living in the jungle, returning to "civilization," then returning to the nobility of the jungle, or whatever, is enforcing the idea that Africa has no culture, only brute nature. Europe or European enclaves are "civilization," African culture isn't even there. I could go on and on, but I don't want to belabor the point. Another issue I have with Disney in relation to Africa is that it does not seem to want to acknowledge that African people exist. We had the Lion King, which was a story about animals (and why they got Elton John and not an African composer is beyond me), and now you have Tarzan which is about a lost, white, European boy raised by Apes. Why? I know people have mentioned that Disney would "Americanize" African tales if they chose to use them, but that would be better than what they're doing now. There are all levels of stories in Africa, from folk tales to epics on par with the Odyssey. They can Americanize it, but still have it turn out okay (like they did with Mulan, which is the first Disney film I truly liked since, oh, the early eighties when I was too young to know any better). It's funny how many professors I've had who've used Tarzan as the ultimate example of the way in which Africa is contiually considered in a stereotyped manner by Westerners. Now, through making this film, a whole new generation is going to be introduced to an Africa where the only culture to be found is that of talking apes, and where the only people swing through trees. It's a real shame.
-
This is primarily to all the parents out there. First of all, the parents are buying into the Disney areas just where Disney wants you to buy into.... The merchandise. True, Mushu was cartoony, but really, he was there for the marketing. The Pink elephant in Tarzan... yep he's in there soley for Disney to make a buck. And you know what, you will buy into it. Second Disney has been wanting to break into the adult animation market for some time (I know I worked for Disney for two years). I had the pleasure of seeing Princess Mononoke in Japan when it was first released and it blew me away. Disney has a partnership with the company that did Mononoke to make adult animation in American, but even then Disney is too chicken to go all the way. They actually wanted to make cuts to Mononoke to "tone down" the movie. (Thank God the Japanese stood their ground and said no way!) GIVE ME A BREAK!! I'm glad the movie will be recieving an 'R' rating because I know exactly what would happen if it didn't. Parents out there would just assume that because it's a cartoon it's made for kids. They will send their kids off to see the latest animation and then complain when it's not what they expected. If Disney wants to make kids films, then they need to stick to kid themes! What was the deal with Hunchback anyways. You can't tell me as a parent that Hunchback was a kids story to began with. It was never meant for kids and Disney dumbed it down. They even felt the need to rewrite the mythology of Hercules so as not to offend parents or kids. As far as the parent saying, "if you want to see adult animation, go see Japanese Animation," that would be great and all, but have you noticed that the only place to get that is in the video store. Mononoke hopefully will open the way for more animation like it. If I'm not mistaken, this will mark the first Anime to hit the big screens in America. Yes, we adults will cry for adult animation. I for one am tired of Disney screwing up otherwise good stories for the sake of the child. What is the child getting from it anyways? Wrong history (Pochantos anyone?) And walk away with this dumb ideal of false history. I am going to be a parent anyday now, and let me tell you, I have more respect for the Japanese for making cartoons that are meant for kids (Totoro, Kiki's Delivery Service) while giving them great original stories while at the same time are not afraid to make adult animation. They know how to keep the two seperate. They don't screw too much with history or with stories written for an audience that obviously didn't include children.
-
Wow, I'm impressed. Since this talkback doesn't concern Star Wars, The Matrix, or any of those stupid "Oh it's geeky cool" topics (not that Star Wars or The Matrix qualify for that), we're actually seeing some intelligent and mature, profanity free, talkbacks here. And it's still good debate.
-
Well, well, well. I and about 8 of my collegues have seen storyreels with some animation for both Tarzan and The Iron Giant. I'll just say that we all loved IG and hated Tarzan. To be fair, I haven't seen the final CG intergration in Tarzan, but so far it's hardly seemless. I particularly loathe the camera fly-through in the trees during the baboon sequence. Obviously, Disney is setting up a theme park ride here. The Iron Giant boasts much better CG integration. The CG does not draw attention to itself. It's great work from Alan Foster and his crew. The Iron Giant is going to wipe the floor with Tarzan's rear. It's too bad Disney doesn't have the guts to make a film with an overall vision. Tarzan looks like three different movies rolled ito one. It's a music video, a beautifully graphic drama and a goofy cartoon. Part of the reason is this two or more directors crap. IG has one director and one vision. I hope at least they kept the scene I saw where "you know who" buys it. If you haven't seen it yet, you'll know what I mean once you do. Competition is gaining ground on Disney and if they don't watch it they miss their chance to grab a potion of the adult market. Whatever happens, Disney will never be as dominant as they were in the '90s. Thank GOD!!! Maybe competition will get them to give up their damn security blanket!!
-
I totally agree with Godai-kun for informing the fact that Disney IS gradually breaking the kid-oriented genre of animated films. Just check out their future production over the next few years. The films are getting more and more sophisticated as Mulan is a signal and Tarzan is the first step in that progress.
Besides, who ever said Tarzan was marketed for adults? Though it may turn out to be a kids film, there are reasons for it to be good.
-Walter- -
Okay, I've been hearing all this stuff about how disney films should be meant for kids et al.
I do agree with that - we can't expect Disney to make anything like 'R'-rated Japanese anime -- for one thing the culture is and the public they cater to is completely different.
On the other hand, if they decide to make a film with an adult plot, it'd be desirable that you expect something a little more sophisticated -- nothing like what they do in those idiotic 'sneak previews' with even more idiotic TINA from movie surfers.
Basically what I'm saying is -- Disney should make up its mind - They either get a children's story and work on it to appeal to children, or they can get their Hunchbacks, Tarzans (and Hercules, for G'ssake!) and actually try to do something a little more relevant. Again I don't expect them to come up with an R rated Hunchback of Notredame, but the movie would have been a lot better if there were no gargoyles talking and singing, and if they kept the movie going as the 1st 15 minutes were - direct to the point, and flowing.
My second comment here concerns the musical numbers. Come on people music is great. True, not every cartoon has to be a musical, but music DOES add to films. Haven't you ever been to Broadway shows??? Some of them (like the Phantom of the Opera) are excellent and are 100% made up of songs. The problem w/ Disney is they need to improve their taste -- Aladdin had great songs like "A Whole New World" or a "A Friend like me", Mulan on the other hand would have been better off with no songs at all (except for "Be a Man"). The truth is if the songs are 1)well done (ie. good lyrics, good melodies, not necessarily pop-crap) and 2) can blend into the movie without stopping it for a quick song break, and then going back to it (again "A whole new world" is a good example, "beauty and the beast"is also good, and the pests song in POE is excellent;) they could really turn into being good for the story-telling purpose, instead of damaging the movie like some songs in mulan, and don't-remind-me-of-it Hunchback of Notre Dame.
Then again, that's only what I think. -
What's with Disney and these "Tarzan" stories. George of the Jungle, The Jungle Book (both animated and live) and now the original Tarzan. If you ask me, Micheal Eisner has a hard-on for ape men in loin clothes.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts