Cool News
Moo Cow gets "Inside" Disney
What we have here my fellow geeks is a honest-to-god, real live feature story... some damn fine journalism, and Father Geek isn't going to muddy it up with some longwinded intro... If you love the Mouse... If you hate the Mouse... If you could care less about the Mouse... it doesn't matter because this story is for you all... If your on this site this story is for you...
Hey, Kids !
Moo Cow here. I was kind of surprised by the reaction to my "Emperor's New Groove" story last week. A lot of AICN
readers seemed to like the piece. But more than a few accused me of being a mouthpiece for the Mouse. Ha Ha. It is to laugh.
While I will admit that I have been inside Disney's snazzy Feature Animation building in Burbank ( Snazzy maybe for
architecture fans. The actual animators who work there have been complaining about
how poorly the building is designed. It seems that master architect Robert Stern -- after being commissioned by Eisner to
design a showplace for Disney Feature Animation -- never actually talked to any animators about what their work needs might
be. Consequently, though the Feature Animation building Stern designed may look great from the outside, it's not much fun
being stuck on the inside. Its high ceilings and huge open space make the place difficult to heat and light. Its hard concrete floor
play hell with the animators' backs. Worst of all, Stern didn't design enough rooms in the place to hold every member of
Disney's animation staff. Even though the whole point of building this multi-million 'Sorcerer Mickey' hat topped place was that
Disney would once again have all their California artists together under one roof, the place is woefully under-sized. The Mouse
still has to rent office space all around Burbank and Glendale to house its overflow feature animation staff. All in all, the Feature
Animation building fiasco was a typical Disney operation for the 1990s. It may have looked great from the outside. But the
people on the inside have a very different story to tell. Anyway ... ), I've never been anywhere near Tom Schumacher's desk --
let alone let him edit my copy.
Why I write these pieces isn't because I'm doing damage control for Disney. It's because I have friends who work for the
Mouse. Average joes who toil away in animation, trying to the best they can under some very difficult circumstances. Folks
who don't appreciate it when films they've worked on for four years get slammed by dweebs who haven't seen frame one from
the flick.
Plus there are stories that I really think need to get out. I mean would I
dare to reveal the following tale :
With apologies to the makers of "Inside John Malkovich," let's now go ...
INSIDE ROY DISNEY
Ever wonder what it would be like to stroll around inside the mind of a big-time studio executive? Well, come on,
then! Let's lift the lid of this Hollywood legend and take a peek, shall we?
Okay, watch your step ... So far, so good ... No surprises here ... Loving family man ... Likes to sail ... Proud of his
work ... Enjoys a drink or two ... Hey, what's with all the emotional baggage?
Animation insiders have been intrigued as of late by numerous very public appearances of Vice Chairman of the Walt Disney
Company, Roy E. Disney. Normally a behind-the-scenes guy, Roy became very visible during the roll-out of "Fantasia 2000."
He was featured prominently in the film's trailers. He made personal appearances at each of "Fantasia 2000" 's premiere
performances at Carnegie Hall. Hell, as part of the promotion of the film, Roy even served as the grand marshall of this year's
"Tournament of Roses Parade."
What gives? Why did this normally shy, soft-spoken guy turn into such an extrovert? Could it be that he's extremely proud of
"Fantasia 2000" and wants as many people as possible to see the project? Well, there is that ... But the truth is actually a little
more complicated than that.
By stepping out of the shadows and taking some of the credit for the creation of "Fantasia 2000," Roy E. Disney is out to
prove something to himself. To the world. To a lot of the old timers who used to work at Disney Studios. But mostly to his
long-dead uncle.
You see, Walt Disney was not actually the kindly old gent that the Disney Company keeps insisting he was. Undoubtedly a
visionary when it came to the world of entertainment, Walt could also be a very tough guy to work for. Sometimes charming
and caring. But Walt could be downright petty and cruel. A real prick.
You won't find mention of this side of Walt's personality in any of the authorized Disney biographies. The worst thing you'll
ever hear in the sanitized version of the story was that the grand old man sometimes drank and smoke ( Though try and find a
picture of Walt with a cigarette in his hand. The guy was a chain smoker, for God's sakes. It was lung cancer that did him in.
But the Disney PR people have discreetly edited out or airbrushed away any evidence of Walt's
all-too-human addiction. Anywho ... ) or that he could sometimes be demanding of his staff. You'll never hear any of the stories
about what a dark and moody cuss, what a complete bastard he could be at times.
What's particularly interesting and/or ironic is Walt seemed to
get a perverse pleasure out of tormenting his older brother, Roy O. Disney. Roy O. was
the financial brains behind the outfit. He was the guy who begged, borrowed and pleaded for the
funds necessary to keep the doors open at Walt Disney Productions. Walt almost drove the company into bankruptcy on three
separate occasions. Only Roy's financial savvy managed to keep the place afloat.
Was Walt grateful for all his brother's hard work on behalf of the company? Maybe. But it was hard to tell that --
particularly based on Walt's behavior during the early 1960s. During that time, the Disney brothers had a terrible falling out (
Walt felt that Roy hadn't been very supportive during the creation of Disneyland. Roy was offended that his brother had created
a separate company within Walt Disney Productions to design the park. Why this offended Roy was
that Walt alone benefited from the profits and proceeds of WED ). As a result, the brothers didn't speak to each other for
nearly a year.
Walt didn't dare to publicly bad-mouth his brother -- the chief financial officer of their company. If word of his feelings about
his sibling were ever to hit the financial press, it could have a horrifying effect on Disney Productions' stock. Still, all that bad
feeling and bile Walt felt toward Roy O. had to bubble out somewhere. Kindly old Uncle Walt opted to vent his spleen toward
a relatively new employee at the company : his nephew, Roy E. Disney.
Now, you have to understand that this was circa 1962 - 63. And it wasn't like Roy E. was occupying a position of high
authority at the company. He was just starting out in the business -- paying his dues as an assistant editor on those nature films
the company used to run on "The Wonderful World of Disney." Still, Walt went out of his way to constantly say nasty things
about the guy. Which is how Roy E. became known as the "idiot nephew."
Again, you won't see a word of this mentioned in any of the authorized Disney biographies. But pick up a few of the
unauthorized books that are floating around out there -- particularly those that were written in the late 1970s and early 1980s
by guys who used to work at the studio -- and you'll hear some awfully cruel stories about things Walt said or did to Roy E.
Anyway ... 20 years go by. Walt and Roy O. are long gone. And all those studio old timers ( the folks who used to snicker
behind their hands about the "idiot nephew" ) have damn near driven the place to the ground. I won't recap the story here about
how Michael Eisner and Frank Wells ended running the Mouse Works. But you should be aware that it was Roy E. and his
friend & financial advisor who was responsible for saving the company from Saul Steinberg & the rest of the
green mailers by installing Disney's new management team.
When Eisner asked Roy E. what he wanted in return of getting Eisner the top spot at Disney, Roy E. asked to be put in
charge of feature animation. Now, you have to understand that this was back in 1984. A time when Disney feature animation
was at its absolute nadir. The "nine old men" were all either dead, ill or retired. The next generation of Disney artists -- while
long on talent -- were adrift, working without a rudder. They desperately needed inspiration and/or direction. ( Anyone who's
ever seen the film that was produced during this period can clearly see this was a part of the
company that was in serious trouble. )
Anyway, Roy E. wades into this mess and slowly but surely gets things turned around. In spite of the hellacious reviews
"Black Cauldron" received, he persuaded Eisner and Jeffery Katzenberg that the studio should still go forward with a new
animated feature. ( These days, Katzenberg will tell anyone who'll listen that he alone brought about the second Golden Age of
Disney Feature Animation. He loves to tell the story about how he brought the animation unit back from the brink of death.
Well, that's not what folks who worked at the studio back in 1984 remember, though. Back then, Jeffery was just another
greedy suit fresh over from Paramount. It was he who supposedly asked Eisner "Why do we have to keep making cartoons?
We've already got 25 of these things in the can. Couldn't we just shut down the unit and keep re-releasing the old stuff?" Hardly
the words of a savior, eh? ) That fall, Roy personally escorted Michael and Jeffery to Feature Animation one Saturday morning
to see Ron Clements and John Musker's storyboards for "Basil of Baker Street." With a little arm twisting ( And some budget
concessions), he got the project green-lighted ...
And the second golden age of Disney Feature Animation quietly got underway.
Roy E. isn't exactly what you'd call a "hands-on" executive. He'd really much prefer to be sailing or vacationing in Ireland.
But insisted that
Disney Feature Animation finally make the leap into the computer age in the early 1990s by installing CAPS ( Computer
Animation Production System ). Eisner initially balked at this computer system's price tag ( $10 million, which quickly escalated
to $30 million). But Roy E. exercised his clout ... and Eisner eventually caved.
Roy E. also actively campaigned for beefing up the staff of Disney's animation department. With enough artists on board,
Roy E. hoped that Disney Studios would finally be able to do something that Walt had always dreamed of but could never pull
off : turn out a brand new Disney animated feature every year.
Roy saw to it that Disney Feature Animation got the bodies it needed. And he stood by proudly as the newly beefed up
organization turned out "The Little Mermaid " and "Beauty and the Beast," changing forever how modern audiences viewed
Disney animated films. No longer would Disney's cartoons just be considered tame matinee fare ( Like the studio's pale 1970s
era projects, "Robin Hood" and "Pete's Dragon"). Now adults were flocking to night-time showings of the studio's animated
films. Hell, "Beauty and the Beast" even got a Best Picture nomination for the 1992 Academy Awards.
It was in the wake of that film's Oscar nomination that Roy E. called in another marker with Eisner. He wanted to tackle
another project that Walt had dreamed of but could never pull off: new sequences for "Fantasia." Eisner was understandably
reluctant about allowing Roy E. to go forward with the project. This meant tampering with a film that had been recognized as a
classic. Hell, the Library of Congress had just asked for a copy of the original version of "Fantasia" to add to their archives.
Who were they to screw with a national treasure?
But Roy persisted ... and persisted ... And finally, Eisner -- after getting Roy to promise that he'd keep production costs
down -- relented, okaying production of "just a few" new animated sequences for "Fantasia."
Well, nine years and $120 million dollars later, we've got a new "Fantasia." Not one with "just a few" new scenes, but a
radically refurbished film with seven brand new sequences. Folks who have seen the IMAX version of the film have just raved.
Which brings us back to Roy E. stepping out into the spotlight. Why's he doing that? Roy's just shaking off 30 years of bad
juujuu. He's accomplished two things that Uncle Walt never could :
1) Disney Studios now cranks out at least one brand new animated feature every year. ( In 2000, we'll actually see two :
"Dinosaurs" and "the Emperor's New Groove." The last time Disney was able to do that was 'way back in 1940, when the
company released "Pinocchio" as well as the original "Fantasia." Speaking of which ... )
2) The studio was finally able to produce new sequences for "Fantasia."
So who's the "idiot nephew" now?
Look for Roy to remain in the spotlight right up through July of this year, when "Fantasia 2000" begins its run in regular
theaters nation-wide. After that ... Well, while animators are already asking him when they can begin work on new sequences
for the next version of "Fantasia," look for Roy E. to slip back into the shadows ... then maybe pack it in entirely at Disney.
After all, Roy E. ain't no spring chicken. Having turned 70 this year ( and having finally exorcised a few personal demons ),
this is a man who wants to enjoy the rest of his days on the planet. Roy doesn't want to waste any more time in animation
production meetings ( Though he still regrets that he never found a way to talk Eisner out of going forward with an animated
version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame." To Roy's way of thinking, that movie was just too damn dark ). He longs to climb
onto his boat and leave the nonsense of Hollywood behind him.
More power to you, Roy E. Just be sure to leave all that emotional baggage on the dock before you sail off into the sunset.
****************************************
Okay. Let the slings and arrows fly.
Just in case someone wants to accuse me of building Roy E. up by tearing Walt down in the above story, let me be clear
here : While I may respect everything Walt Disney accomplished in his lifetime, it's important to remember that the man was not
a saint. Walt could make mistakes. Hell, he even admitted it himself. Take the quote below :
"We all make mistakes ... I shall now rededicate myself to my old ideals."
Who was Walt talking to? Everyone attending the 1941 Academy Awards. He said this during his acceptance speech for the
Irving Thalberg Award.
What was he apologizing for? Creating the original "Fantasia" ?!
I'm serious, folks. Get yourself a copy of Mason Wiley and Damien Bona's great book about the Academy Awards, "Inside
Oscar : The Unofficial History of the Academy Awards" ( Ballantine Books ). There you can read
how David Selznick presented Walt a bust of Irving Thalberg for the creation of "Fantasia." Once Walt got to the podium, he
started weeping, then said :
"Thank you so much for this. Maybe I should have a medal for bravery. We all make mistakes. 'Fantasia' was one but an
honest one. I shall now rededicate myself to my old ideals."
That's Walt's comments in full. Of course, you have to understand that Walt was under a lot of pressure.
"Fantasia" had just flopped at the box office. His studio was on the brink of bankruptcy -- again.
But isn't it strange that -- while the Walt Disney Company is still happy to list the Irving Thalberg award as one of the many
trophies Walt won in his life-time -- you never heard word one about this particular acceptance speech.
Your comments?
Moo Cow
-
+ Expand All
-
Feb 08, 2000 10:24:08 PM CST
Moo Cow, I gotta agree that Disney certainly "churns" and "crank
by niiiice
I guess the goal here is quantity over quality. They figure, being Disney, they get a guaraunteed $100 million take NO MATTER WHAT. Could there be any other reason for The Tigger Movie rather than to capitalize on the recent upsurge of interest in Pooh and his stuffed friends? Ok, I know that Disney is supposed to stand for "fine quality family entertainment", but that doesn't mean they have to stick with predictability and it CERTAINLY does not mean they should tamper with great stories from history and change them and water them down for today's little six year old! Tell me, count how many anachronisms and pop culture talk you find in Sleeping Beauty or Snow White? And this latest Emperor's New Groove, supposedly about Aztec culture right? A culture that was rife with bloody war, human sacrifices and flayings! Think we'll be seeing these in a Disney film? Oh, but Disney filsm are for kids! Then stick to stories FOR kids, don't change history because their sensitive little eyes can't witness such horror. Disney's more about being a corporation than it is about producing quality films.
-
Perhaps the best "unauthorized" biography of 'Uncle Walt' is "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince" by Marc Eliot. Truly disturbing stuff inside (including Walt's insistance that the animators actually clock OUT before sharpening their pencils). Some Disneyholics may rant and rave that Walt was the Second Coming... check this one out for the real skinny on the guy.
-
Feb 08, 2000 10:43:06 PM CST
Emperor's New Groove??!What a crappy ti..oh,yeah,we already went
by user id indeed!
Thank you for the risque journalism,MooCow!Now if only we could get inside the mind of whoever is making the sequel to Stuart Little.Of all the films unworthy to have a sequel!!!Grrr...Oh,and I always thought it was"Dinosaur",rather than "DinosaurS".Hmm...in retrospect,I guess it could work either way.What you know bout dat???
-
Good God!!! You people are such whiners! Oh, why the hell are they making a sequel to that?!?! Oh, of all the movies to make a sequel to!!! Boo frickin hoo!!! Let's get this straight, Hollywood is a BUSINESS first these days, yes it's unfortunate, but it's the TRUTH. When a movie makes money ($$$), the studio will make a SEQUEL, because it guarantees more money ($$$). Yes it sucks that sequels to GODZILLA, STUART LITTLE, INSPECTOR GADGET, and THE MUMMY are underway, but that's the way things work in HOLLYWOOD. Good God, bitching about sequels should be outlawed, it's such a damn simple thing to figure out. Why waste your time typing out your complaints? Ohhhh, BillyBobSequelHater doesn't think Stuart Little 2 is a good idea? Shit, we better scrap it quick!!! Get a clue people. Thank you.
-
and I still think the title sucks! Even in Disney movies where comedy was prominent (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Toy Story) you didn't want to laugh at the title! Nobody will take this movie seriously unless the title gets changed.
-
Captain Kronos:
While I agree, Walt wasn't a saint by any means, (he was probably anti-semitic and he evidently had ties to the FBI, regarding communist sympathizers,) Eliot's book contained numerous factual errors and undocumented assertions. Eliot found the smoking gun with regard to the FBI documents, but that wasn't enough to put an entire book together. So he reported a lot of rumors as facts. Go to snopes.com and read about Eliot's outrageous assertions with regard to the illegitimate child, the Goldwater pin and the kyrogenic freezing rumors. If he made these mistakes/exaggerations, then he likely made numerous others. I wouldn't condemn Walt, based only on this potentially inaccurate book.
But what about the things that Walt did that were lousy. What, you've never done something lousy? As for whether Walt could be a prick sometimes, sure. I'm a royal prick about three times a week. You probably are too. It is human to be a prick.
Whatever the case, the guy was a great story teller and he had a hell of a lot of great ideas. So prick or not, the man gets my respect.
-
Next time you're out by Disney Studios in Burbank, check out the Mickey Mouse-styled barbed wire around the compound, the "friendly" guards at the gate, the strange and quiet atmosphere at the studio itself("Friendliest Place On Earth?"Then why don't people smile at one another and make simple converstation?) and how you must sign(And I mean MUST!) a document stating that anything that you create intellectually there and at your home, belongs to them! "AUCHTUNG, ADOLPH EISNER!" I wonder if the animation department has tunnels under the studio? I'd also be worried if they give away free "showers" in one of the sound stages!
-
I HATE THOSE GUYS!
-
Moo Cow, great piece there, thanks for the look into the real Disney. -Chris
-
Not only was Walt an all-around jerk to his relatives and employees, he was also a rabid anti-Semite. One of those "ideals" he rededicated himself to was the protection of America from what he perceived as a "foriegn menace." Many anti-Semitic drawings of rat-faced Jews hoarding money and bleeding Christian children found in WW2 era pamphlets have been traced back to Ol' Walt. Oh yeah, and did I mention he also snitched on those he suspected of being "California Commies" to the House Un-American Activities Committee. A lot of them were (suprise suprise) Jewish filmmakers and entertainers. I just WISH your head had been frozen, MouseMan, so I could spike it in the end zone. Peace.
-
As someone noted above, Disney feels no pressure to do anything outside of their now-familiar equation: Simple story + songs + talking animal + romance subplot = $$$. They don't take risks because they don't need to. As long as the same old, same old earns it's money back in international sales and toy franchises, why bother to change? I am not, as Moo Cow or whoever said, knocking the "Emperors New Groove". My disappointment is with their shoddy work ethic.
-
The practical aspects of architecture in this country are all screwed up and anybody that looks under the rug knows it, Philip Johnson, Walter Hood, Julie Bargman, others. No surprises there. As for Disney animation, as long as they keep dishing these movies out people will keep lining up to see them. There was a time though after "Puke-ahontas," Hunchback, and Hercules that I really thought Disney animation might sink back into those decade long doldrums. Looks like it might still happen afterall. Oh, well. On another subject, so how secure is AICN against some disgruntled geek perpetrating Harry's temple with mop traffic? Not a safe time to leave the minions guarding the fortress Harry.
-
Has anyone else ever noticed that Walt Disney himself, the founder of the art of film animation... had absolutely no sense of humor? That his personal efforts like "Snow White" and "Pinocchio" are so humorless and moralistic that you gag when you hear the dialogue? Bravo to Roy Jr, Disney animation is now fun!
-
A very nice story indeed. I've always had a feeling that behind the cheery facade of Disney lied many internal troubles. I guess it's understandable why Disney's stock has been heading in the southern direction the past several years. -Dan
-
Why does Disney stick with their proven formula?....As someone above pointed out, because it's proven, and continues to be every time they release anything. They're not alone in hollywood by ANY standards in this. I mean, c'mon, how many times have we gone to a movie and left feeling like we had already seen it? (Double Jeopardy comes to mind) But, to rise to the defense of those in the trenches in the Mouse House, and indeed, in other notable animation studios, they DO honestly try, time and again, to make something that's different. The movie Mulan held great promise at the get go (originally titled the Legend of Fa Mulan), with the directors and artists all striving for something with cultural significance, only to have the powers that be step in to protect their bottom line. I figure similar situations happen with every single animated film they make. Tarzan, while bu no means the most spectacular film Disney's ever made, was finally a step back in the right direction. I know, I know, a pink elephant and an annoying best friend bogged down the progress of the film and lent nothing to the story, but there was a maturity to the main plots Disney's been lacking for some time. (Maturity being relative for Disney) And as far as animation goes, I will have to grudgingly admit that the Mouse still kicks butt there too. With companies like Dreamworks and Warners upping the ante as they can, the actual animation in Disney's films is still about the best in the world, if not THE best in the world. The artists are among the best, the talent is among the best, so I guess we know where to look for the problems they have....On the other side of those boardroom doors
:)Rifferus -
... like how "Hunchback" could grab a G-rating in spite of Lust being the villain's motive and a demented sequence by Frollo at the fireplace. I'm not saying it wasn't cool, it just WASN'T rated-G. Matt and Trey over at "South Park" know what happened here, too... someone at the MPAA got a few "gifts." Has anybody signed Moo Cow for an book exclusive, yet? One more thing... when we gonna finally see an UNCUT video or DVD of "The Black Cauldron?"
-
Feb 09, 2000 1:00:31 AM CST
Uncapie, Rev. Dave and others who are ignorant about animation
by mozeman
Having actually WORKED in animation, at Disney among other places, I want to set the record straight for those who are fond of speaking out of their arses.
The tight security at Disney (and all of the other majors) exists because of web sites like THIS one. When I was interviewed, I had to swear about not sharing any information or images to these kinds of web sites. Second, to Uncapie, who obviously has no animation experience, the contract stating that whatever you create belongs to the studio is a fairly common practice. It is designed to prevent artists from contesting ownership of "ideas" about stories and characters. You understand this upfront going in, and if you don't like it, don't work there.
Third, Disney takes far more risks with material than they did. What was so ground-breaking about friggin' Cinderella? The "formula" that you nimrods always complain about is called "STORY STRUCTURE" and exists in every GOOD movie or story out there, both live-action and animation. Disney does what it has to do by making stories work, but still stretching its legs creatively. Producing a film a year is no easy task, and you have no choice but to experiment and try new things. But you can't alienate your audience at the same time, or what's the point of doing it at all?
Be critical of Disney (my friends do it all the time) but get a clue as to what you're talking about first.
-
I am glad that he championed the animation department when Eisner and Katzenberg were out to dismantle it, but really. Roy's contribution to the New Disney is questionable. He just looks a hell of a lot like his uncle Walt, so they keep him around. That's all, he's a figurehead, a walking reminder of a frozen king. I am glad that people are talking about Eisner's lack of enthusiasm for the art of animation. It is clear that Disney makes all of its decisions out of its wallet, and it is that which stiffles the studios growth. I disagree with those who hate Disney animation. I still find it artful and enjoyable (though rarely surprising). For all the earnest yearning of its young heroes for growth and adventure, this company has never learned its own lesson. Take a risk! This company needs to find a NEW GROOVE (and some lame ass South American gag reel ain't gonna cut it).
-
Maybe the sub line says it all, but do not miss this book, subtitled 'How Disney Devours the World'
Just me grinding my ax.
-
Feb 09, 2000 2:01:19 AM CST
Mozeman, glad you posted. You're proof that Disney's Gestapo bra
by uncapie
You're right, I'm not an animator. I don't have that talent, but I have many friends that do have it and I've seen the shit they go through over at "Mouseschwitz." They are people there who have creativity and want to do other things with their lives. They don't want to live under a tyrannical rule the was Disney is run. They want to create other things, but aren't allowed to for fear of ADOLPH EISNER slapping them and taking it away from them with his Iron Fist! I'm glad you bow down to your masters over there. After all, everyone should have a paycheck, if you're not one of the one's on the cut-back list. You remind me of the guy with the wheelbarrow nervously peering from the corner of his eye to see if Raphe Finnes(Eisner) is going to shoot him with his rifle. Its nice to know when Katzenberg won his settlement with Disney, the next day Disneyland raised its admission prices to compensate for the loss. Who wouldn't be glad to work for the people that brought you the "Happiest Place On the Earth." Have you ever noticed how you wage slaves struggle while Adolph Eisner has how many hundreds-of-millions, a golden parachute, stock options, bonuses. How much more can a person like that have? How better can he eat? What better car can he drive? Adolph Eisner raped Disney when he started and continues to do so. Its chumps like you that thinks he's a charming personality. The bell is ringing. Time for you to wake up, Palovian Dog.
-
They released a lot of crap after "Aladdin", but I honestly think that "Fantasia 2000" was the SINGLE BEST Disney movie released since Walt died. Right on Roy E.!! I traveled 3 hours to see it, and would consider doing it again!! Tarzan was also very good. I was happy that the character singing was held to a minimum. It's okay to have songs with lyrics, but do the characters really have to sing in every film?!?! Please, do more movies like Tarzan (but without Rosey, she sucks!).
-
You seem to be getting a bit defensive there, Moo. Very few people seemed to be criticizing the movie itself, they were criticizing the title. And I think that each of us is entitled to our own opinion about that, this being a forum and all. Personally I recall posting something particularly sarcastic about the title of the film and about Disney overall. But I do have reason to doubt the film. That is the generally low quality of films that have come out of that floundering studio recently (floundering artistically, not financially). When I criticize Disney, I
-
Thanks for dealing with Mozeman's post. Mozeman, you're wrong that its hard to dish out a film a year. Its easy to dish out SHIT a year. The difficulties of producing a quality film per year is evident by the fact that Disney hasn't done one. Most of their "techniques" are based off of works done by anime artists on an infintessimally smaller budget (this was pointed out in Ebert's review of Tarzan). So you say that for a story to be good it has to be completely predictable and uninventive? Hmm, seen Being John Malkovich? If Disney wants to stick to making family movies, then it should go for FAMILY STORIES. Stories about Aztec life are NOT kid stuff! Something tells me that very little of what was actually Aztec daily life will make an appearance in the film. So tell me, if Disney is stretching its legs creatively, how come the overwhelming majority of its work is based on previously written material?
-
Thank you, Bread, for saying what I was thinking while reading that painful first paragraph. I, too, was addressing the title, but I remember saying the film seemed to have some potential. And I'll admit, I was one of the people who said that Moo Cow reeked of Disney or Disney-related origin. I guess I wasn't too far off because his/her sources are from Disney, but I was wrong in my initial statement and I'll admit that. It was also the first time I'd ever accused someone of being a "plant" and it may not be the last, but when I'm wrong I'm wrong and I'm probably one of the few on this site who will admit it. Overall, it was a good article, and I still have respect for Disney's work. The fact that he was a mean ol' son of a bitch has nothing to do with the work, but makes me feel sorry for Roy E. I wish someone would write another Disney biography with more detailed accounts of what happened. (Witnesses and all)
-
Moo Cow, I doubt you have any personal interest in defaming the character of Walt Disney, but you have inadvertently done it. Those unauthorized biographies you recommend are full of crap. No, the man wasn't a saint, but those unauthorized bios paint him almost as the Devil himself; they are pure sensationalism and are no more objective than your average Disney press release. For a GOOD authorized bio of Walt, I'd recommend Bob Thomas' "Walt Disney: An American Original", which acknowledges most of what you said. It pounds the point home that he was pretty much coughing his lungs up by 1966, the result of a lifetime of smoking. As I recall, it documents MORE than one spat between Walt and his brother. Was he a jerk? No doubt, he certainly came off that way, many times. An oft-repeated anecdote has one animator passing Walt in the hallway one day, saying "Hi, Walt," and Walt just going on his way, ignoring the man. The other man figured his boss was not the type for casual greetings, and the next time he and Walt passed one another in the hall, the man said nothing. He had barely gotten ten feet when he heard Walt remark, rather loudly, "Hey, doesn't anyone say 'Hello' anymore?" The point is that Walt was often in such deep concentration about one problem or another that it caused him to shut out everything else in the world. This understandably led people to think that he was a cold fish, but nothing could be further from the truth. Were such incidents rude of him? Yes, but it was never with any intentional malice. Walt could be short with his people, but he genuinely cared about making them happy and providing them with the best work environment possible. Consider the Animation Building he built for his staff in the late thirties. He pulled out all the stops to upgrade facilities from the old Hyperion Studio; his mission was to give his animators the best facilities possible at that time. And, without a doubt, he did. The old Burbank Studio was like nothing else in the animation industry. It's interesting that you bring up the flaws in the new studio; compare the two. And yes, Roy E. accomplished what Walt never could - a new "Fantasia" - but let's keep this in perspective. In 2000, The Walt Disney Company owns about half the planet and has more money than God. Compare this to the state of the company in 1940. Disney was at its creative peak then, and Walt did want to keep adding to "Fantasia", but it was financially impossible. It may be hard to believe now, but Walt Disney Productions was on the brink for YEARS. It wasn't until the late FIFTIES that they actually started turned a profit, and that was only because of the advent of Disneyland, which was almost pure profit from the get-go. And the period right after the completion of "Pinocchio" and "Fantasia" (IMHO, the two greatest Disney films) began some of the studio's darkest days. 1941 was a devastating year for Disney; the outbreak of war in Europe, which took away about half of Disney's markets (probably the primary reason for the failure of the above films) robbed the company of a huge chunk of its profits; the '41 animators' strike crippled its morale (which brings me back to Walt's demeanor toward his employees: through the late thirties and early forties, he had trusted his men implicitly and was as accomodating as he could possibly be toward the emerging animators' unions - make no mistake; his men were VERY WELL treated, and wanted for little financially; in the middle of the Depression this was nothing to sneeze at. That many of them went on strike anyway was a deep personal blow to him; it shook him so deeply that he gradually changed his entire political philosophy). He never completely trusted his employees again; though one could argue that he was unnecessarily harsh and unforgiving in this regard, his position was understandable. During the war Disney turned most of his operations over to government production, and by the war's end WDP was in no shape to undertake ANY full-length feature, let alone one of the scope of "Fantasia". The promise of the forties was forever lost. The company lived from film to film for another ten years; they had to pick their steps very carefully, as they simply couldn't survive losses of the kind Disney now takes almost every other day. By the time WDP had gotten firmly back on its feet, Walt had largely lost interest in animation (in favor of live-action films and his ideas for future theme parks), and a return to "Fantasia" was no longer a real possibility. After Walt's death, and the long dark night of the '70s and '80s, it was out of the question. My point with all this is that this is really the first time in many, many years that Disney has been in a real POSITION to make another "Fantasia" - and, as you pointed out, if Eisner had his way it STILL might never have happened. And, my FINAL point in this long-winded post (where'd everyone go?) is that, given WDP's years-long precarious financial situation, rifts between Walt and Roy O. were inevitable. After all, Walt was the creative end; one of the reasons WDP was in the red for so long was Walt's obsessive perfectionism. Any and all profits the company made went right back into production, and then some; the artistic results speak for themselves, but his financial decisions were dubious to say the least. Roy, being the financial end of the company, was naturally driven crazy by Walt's business practices. Arguments over money were QUITE frequent, and several times resulted in major falling-outs, but the brothers always reconciled. In the end, there was no hatred between them; indeed, it is hard to imagine that their nearly forty-five year partnership could have endured if not for their deep love and respect for one another. For all of his flaws, Walt was one of the most brilliant entrepeneurs in American history. From a very young age, I have studied his life and work, and he has been a true hero to me. His story was one of the major contributing factors toward my decision to pursue a career in animation. It's easy to point fingers at Walt as the root of all of the evil that defines the company today (as many people do), but most of us who've read about Walt's true creative ideals and guiding philosophies are absolutely heartsick at the direction Eisner and Katzenberg took. The Walt Disney Company is now a huge success now, yes, but it has been at the cost of its soul. Not to belittle your study of Disney history, Moo Cow - I'm sure you already know all this - but I'd urge you not to put much more stock in those unauthorized bios than you would in the sanitized Disney publicity. Anyway, thanks for the fascinating inside look.
-
I know that even if we consider "Snow White" to be a timeless classic, the music, for example, must have come across very contemporary when it was released (similar to musicals etc). Disneymovies has always had quite contemporary soundtracks up til the 90's! (listen to the really groovy "rock"-music in "Robin Hoods" actionsequences, for example). But I think you're right Niiiice, other than that older Disneymovies DOES seem more timeless.
-
Most people probably know this already by I will repeat the story anyway.
Apparently Uncle Walt was always asked to draw something when he made public apperances (speeches, dinners etc.) This guy was Walt disney the animation guy right?. Well in fact his artistic talents left alot to be desired especially when it came to drawing his own characters. So one day he sat down with one of the animators and got him to teach him how to draw Mickey Mouse as simply as he could. So the animator broke the drawing down into basic shapes (circles for the ears a couple of ovals for the face) and therefore when Walt was asked to draw anything you got a standard Mickey Mouse head just like everyone else. -
This is the first I've heard of this film...what happened to Kingdom In the Sun??
-
you must've read a different talk back than me, moo cow. didn't you see that everyone hated the new idea, of the utterly, retardedly titled film, the emporer's new groove? i think roy e. must be more pissed about this one, than he was about hunchback.
-
Deltahead, we all know that Walt Disney was a moody, difficult HUAC and FBI cooperating anti-semite, but what exactly is the source for your statement that "many anti-Semitic drawings of rat-faced Jews hoarding money and bleeding Christian children found in WW2 era pamphlets have been traced back to Ol' Walt"? Marc Eliot? Is there any reliable source that reproduces one of these pamphlets? Please detail this further.
-
You're suggesting that someone who knows more than you, but still disagrees with you is BRAINWASHED? Isn't that convenient? Several of the guys I know have left Disney to work at smaller studios, but many hundreds more stay. Why? It's the law of Hollywood - the more creative and independent you want to be, the smaller you have to be. The example of Being John Malkovich that someone else mentioned is a good example. And you guys are failing to address the most important point. ALL OF HOLLYWOOD creates the same stuff and levies the same criticism, but you guys act like Disney is the only one and that animation is the only culprit. That's simply not the case, and until you can face up to reality and not your own ignorant fantasy, then you'll just have to go on crapping on the hard work of hundreds of talented animators and calling them "brain-washed".
BTW, MOST movies are based on previously written materials, not just Disney and not just animation. In fact, New Groove, ironically, is not. It's an original story developed by the studio, as are the next few pictures coming out. -
Thanks MC for a 1st-rate piece of reportage. I've heard bits n' pieces of this story, but a lot of what he had to say was new to my ears & he put it all together to tell a fine story. ~ ~ ~ I always thought Roy - with his folksy manner & unanny physical & vocal resemblance to his Unca' Walt - deserved to host the WW of Disney TV series when it was on a few years back, in place of Eisner who was introducing the episodes along with somebody in a Mickey Mouse suit. Happy sailing, Roy!
-
Thanks for the info. Both your posts had insight and were enjoyable reading.
But I still hate Disney. I hate the fact they change history. I hate the fact they hire pedophiles and KNOW they do. (imagne that, you get hot over watching a 7 year old jumping on her mom's lap, where else would YOU want to work?
I hate the fact that when I wanted to decorate my kids room, and I wanted to stay away from disney, I had to fucking chose Peter Rabit, as FUCKING DISNEY OWNS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!
and don't even recommend WB, yeah like I want my kids to be rappin' by the time their 4. -
I could not agree more with the article. Walt Disney was a bastard at times but he was also a visionary in the field of animation and if it weren't for him I don't think that we would have the quality of animation that we have today. I for one am also glad to see Roy starting to step into the spotlight. Being that he is the only namesake working for the company right now I think that he should be in the public eye more. I also think that he should take as much credit as he can for Fantasia 2000, considering that Eisner tried to stop him from realizing his uncles dream. And since I mentioned Eisner I don't really care for him. As much as he has turned the company into a giant I feel that he has lost sight of Walt Disney's original vision for Disney, a company and place that puts the family first...not money, as that is what seems to drive Eisner. Well thank you for letting me vent and comment on that well written article. AN AVID DISNEY FAN!!!
-
In what way does this qualify as an "honest to God journalistic feature"? I'm not reading anything here I didn't already know.
-
Disney films are the highlights of my life. I look forward to them with baited breath all year. Thank you, Moo Cow, for doing a piece on my favorite studio, and even though Walt Disney is my personal idol (and the genius of his generation) I think it IS important to see that he could be a little freaky deaky at times. I love it to death. Thank you!
-
Very interesting article MooCow (are you any relation to Chicken?)... I'm on the inside of Disney [sometimes] and I overhear some of the executives' conversations in the elevator [sometimes] and I'm just DYING to listen in on what they think of this! And my pal Bundledan, very excellent post! Nice to see most of the Talk Backers are so well-behaved today.
-
Feb 09, 2000 1:34:25 PM CST
Politics, no thanks. I'm more like "Danny-Tunnel King." Mozeman
by uncapie
Mozeman, you're like programming a computer. It only knows what its told. Well, bit brain, as I said before I'm not an animator and I never will be, but many of my friends are and they are not liars! They've worked for the Ratzi's and they are fantastic artists, but they are frustrated and cannot leave the studio beacuse they have wives and kids to feed. They can't make that jump for "Ars Gratis Artis" because they have a commitment to feeding their families, to giving them a roof over their heads. So they
think, "Maybe I'll jump ship and take a chance and "XYZ" animation company will pick me up." If they make their "Great Escape", do you think their supervisor is going to give them a "glowing" review when the competition calls? "Hmmm, working for the enemy now, eh? Well, he was an adequte animator." By law, they cannot put you down, but they don't have to praise you either. So off this animator goes trying to get another job, in the meantime, he has to take anything to pay the bills and that means from driving a cab to washing dishes sometimes. Its easier for a single person to take a chance and live the Spartan life, but for a married man, its a chance he can't really take. So, off to the salt mines he goes everyday wondering if he could have done something great for the world. Sometimes, he gets the chance, but most of the times, he doesn't and looks back on his sketches when he's an old man thinking how he could have changed the world and made children laugh through his artwork on the silver screen. As for the film "Emperor's New Groove" being original, what about the age old fairy tale, "Emperor's New Clothes?" What about Disney's celluloid pablum, "A Spaceman In King Arthur's Court?" starring Ricthie Brockelman(Dennis Dugan). I bet Mark Twain(Samuel Clemens) was just spinning in his grave on that one. -
Roy Disney supported the two who RELLY kick-started the Animation Deptartment back to life--the great John Musker and Ron Clements. They quietly put together a great little film called "Basil of Baker Street (aka Great Mouse Detective)" and then pulled together "The Little Mermaid." Mermaid is THE FILM that pushed Disney to realize the potential of the animation department, and John Musker and Ron Clement's sense of timing, humor, and storytelling permeate each and every frame of that film Menken and Ashman were co-collaborators, but didn't direct the film. Roger Rabbit came out shortly after, and while it got a lot of press, is really a weak film with unfocused animation. John Musker and Ron Clements--with Roy Disney's support--revived the Animation Department--and I for one am looking forward to everything they do (next up: Treasure Planet).
-
Roy didn't just stick his name on Fantasia 2000. He was deeply involved in the whole process, much more so than most of the movies at feature animation. This movie is his baby, and he should be stepping out of the shadows to take credit for it.
The nickname he got is typical of people who are jealous of someone else's advantages, but it was never one that he earned. Roy had amazing ideas throughout the long and arduous production of Fantasia 2000, and he fought for the movie's very existence constantly. Unlike the other movies, Roy would meet regularly with story artists, character designers, animators, editorial staff, everybody on the production. Rarely would a week go by that Roy wasn't seen at Fantasia 2000 a few times. It was a gruelling process, but all of it seemed hopeful because ultimately everybody got a chance to talk with Roy and have him look you in the eye and treat you like a human being. This is unusual in Hollywood, and Disney (the Studio) is no exception. Roy makes it difficult to pick on the company that bears his family name; he's such a genuinely cool guy.
I really don't know about this Moo Cow guy. Still seems like somebody a little too close to the source. Everything he said here could certainly have been sanctioned by the palace guards. -
Disney was pretty much getting its ass kicked in the '80s. Considering the wild success it enjoys now, it's hard to believe just how much trouble it was once in. Walt died in 1966, relatively assured that his company was in capable hands - and indeed, things moved quietly along for years. "The Jungle Book", the last project he'd personally greenlit, was a success, and even through bad spots ("Pete's Dragon") the company turned out solid, successful movies. His brainchild, Walt Disney World, opened on schedule in 1971, and the ambitious EPCOT (which Christopher Finch called "the last and most audacious flowering of an extraordinary imagination"), several years thereafter. But by 1984, Walt Disney Productions was in terrible shape. The last of the Nine Old Men had gone (after doing work on the 1981 "Fox and the Hound"), leaving the studio full of talented but largely untried animators. Don Bluth had left several years before; declaring that Disney no longer upheld the standards put in place by its founder, he led a mass exodus of animators from the studio and, to add insult to injury, started blowing away anything Disney was doing with films like "The Secret of NIMH". The live-action films no longer commanded the respect or box-office reliability they once did; witness flicks like "Herbie Goes Bananas". And then there was "The Black Cauldron". The production problems on this film are now legendary. The Disney staff struggled with it for years, trying desperately to craft a workable film in spite of large staff turnover and low morale. They were losing money like crazy on this one; when Katzenberg came aboard it was his primary argument for shutting down the department altogether, and in those days there was a very real possibility that that might happen. And when "Cauldron" was released in 1985 it was a tremendous failure; it's no accident that for twelve years the company virtually refused to acknowledge its existence. Meanwhile, Disney was forced to start releasing films that Walt would never have approved of; films like "Splash". Not out of disrespect for the company's image, but simply because they had to expand their markets or die (though they did hedge their bets by creating Touchstone Pictures to release them). It seems impossible now, but by 1984, the year of the Eisner/Katzenberg/Wells accession, WDP commanded a mere 2% of the feature film market, industrywide. TWO PERCENT. It is an absolute miracle that Disney was not taken over and absorbed into a larger company. It's also a small miracle that the feature animation division continued at all, as Moo Cow pointed out. Roy E. does deserve credit for basically keeping the division alive during those dark days; Eisner and Katzenberg would just as soon have scuttled it and If "The Great Mouse Detective" had been the failure that "Black Cauldron" was, the animation department would probably have been a goner, but it and "Oliver and Company" (along with a healthy schedule of re-releases) were successful enough to keep it afloat - until the creative and commericial triumph of "The Little Mermaid" in 1989. Eleven years later, Disney is once again in a creative slump, but it's hardly the fault of the animators. Point the blame at the Eisner regime, which has sold out absolutely everything Walt ever believed in in the interest of money. Perhaps it's no accident that, in the days when every single film meant life or death for the studio, Disney was turning out one classic after another. They had no choice but to do so.
-
While I never desire to enter a pissing contest, I find it utterly mind-boggling that Uncapie can admit that he doesn't know what he's talking about and yet continue to take up bandwidth on this. Talk about brainwashed! In fact, guys leave Disney regularly, even those with families. When you have Disney on your resume you can pretty much write your own ticket. In fact, someone close to me (I shan't mention names) just left to go work for a smaller animation company up north. That company is in such desperate need for artists that they are offering percentages for their top artists. Other companies, mostly web and television, can't get enough talented people. So don't give me this "artist and family out on the street" bullshit. If your "friends" are so unhappy with Disney then why don't they go work for another studio? If every other studio in the world is better, then why go work for the one company that has Nazi's for executives and mindless artists for employees? Doesn't sound like your friends are very smart, but at least you're buying their nonsense hook, line, and sinker.
-
Hook: You really think you got a good dig in on Walt. To bad he admitted to it long before you wrote your little piece. In his own words: "I am in no sense of the word a great artist, not even a great animator; I have always had men working for me whose skills were greater than my own. I am an idea man." This is not to say, however, that he was not an animator. Back in Kansas City and in his first years in Hollywood, Walt did draw his own cartoons. Primitive, yes. But he could draw. And while Walt never drew Mickey Mouse in a cartoon, it was his conceptual drawings that Ub Iwerks used to create Steamboat Willy and Plane Crazy.
-
Walt Disney was a severely abused child. His father Elias once hit him in the head with a hammer when he was just a boy. Roy was Walt Disney's protector, and the two shared an extremely close bond. Roy remained in this role his entire life, even guiding Walt Disney World through its final stages to make sure it was done in the manner Walt Disney wanted. The stress cost him his life. You speak of emotional baggage that Roy E. carries around. That's nothing compared to what Walt endured - extreme physical abuse from his father, leading him to doubt his own parentage. In 1928, Charles Mintz hired away all of his animators, destroying the Disney Bros. Studios in the process. Walt became addicted to fame - finding the acceptance he never received from complete strangers, and like a drug, one fix wasn't enough. He pushed the envelope his entire life in the glorification of his name. He bought a house for his parents that had a faulty radiator - his mother died from carbon monoxide poisoning. Disney remained terrified of his father, and only after Elias' death and the completion of Disneyland do you start seeing Disney come to peace wih the world. Disney - loudly called a racist in these talkbacks - reconciled alot of that crap he parroted from his old man. By the late 50's, Disney even sends documentarians around the globe to make small films celebrating world cultures (called the PEOPLE AND PLACES series). I'd like to know what a racist is doing honoring the wedding rituals of Ethiopian Muslims. Its a Small World premieres at the world's fair in 1964, doing nothing but celebrating cultural heritage, reminding us we're one family. The story of Walt Disney's life is the story of the impact parents have on their children - before Disney's death, he was being honored by the Jewish organization B'NAI B'RITH. He took that time also to weep in public, apologizing to his brother Roy from the stage, calling him up to share the award with him. Thought that anecodte was necessary.
-
Hail, Moocow! Let's all applaud this visionary's handiwork. I'm not sure what Moocow has on Harry but this rehash of the worst of the worst biographies of Walt was an immense waste of our time and . Come on, now. Walt was a looney hypocrite and Eisner, a cold megalomaniac? "This just in...fire's hot!" There's nothing new under the sun, folks. People are right royal bastards. (There. I saved you from re-reading the thing.) Now, how about some new genre movie news or opinion? Seems to be precious little of this going on any more. Just grousing about some schmendrick's last post and ain't he a racist and ain't you a dinosaur and blah blah blah. (Although this batch has been rather civil...) Oh, by the by, Fantasia 2K was lacking. There were three or four good segments. About half. Not like the original. Not by a damn sight. The only reason (and only way to see it) is the IMAX process which, if they showed a cat food commercial, could reduce you to a puddle. Peace.
-
Great post.
-
Disney didn't turn over any Hollywood entertainers. Herbert Sorrell - who allegedly threatened to make a "dust bowl" of Walt Disney Studios - was a corrupt Labor official who himself admitted to taking money from Communist organizations. Disney called him a Communist to his face, and repeated the allegations to HUAC. How is a Communist-influenced Labor official a "Hollywood" personality -- read a damn book before you start slandering people as racists and turncoats.
-
Feb 09, 2000 7:08:52 PM CST
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that grownups who lik
by dennis
Sure, Walt came up with the Mouse, but I'd bet he was doodlin' nekkid pictures of Snow White all day long. What touched this off was the mention of the scene in Hunchback. It looks like the animators actually got away with it for once! I don't know what it is. I think that there's something fascinating about being able to create the perfect woman/man that will do whatever you want. I mean, look at the anime market. We're all crying for ADULT animated films. Just my $0.02.
-
I love this Disney stuff. I never grow tired of reading all the ways people make fun of the Family Entertainment Giant. And, for better or worse, I also happen to love all those corny movies they used to churn out, like The Strongest Man in the World's Greatest Athlete, The Fieldgoal-kicking Mule Wore Tennis Shoes, The Barefoot Superdad, Tron... Anyway, so businessman Eisner pushed for Hunchback? Hmm...EuroDisney is failing, re-named Disneyland Paris. Along comes a movie set in...Paris! Coincidence? What about Mulan? I hear there's a Shanghai Disneyland and other Asian Disney parks on the drawing board. Coincidence? And now there's the Emperor's New Groove set in Lamma Country. Can Brazilia Disneyland be far behind (or maybe Mexico City Disneyland if that Aztec angle is true?) Business is business, and these things happen for a reason. And I just pulled this out of my ass. Thank you for your patience.
-
After reading Moo Cow's comments about the rarity of pictures of Walt Disney smoking, I dug out my signed copy of "Remembering Walt: Favorite Memories of Walt Disney" by Disney's Hyperion publishing company.
There are, in fact, quite a number of pictures of Uncle Walk sporting a cig. Every time I see those pictures I cringe, realizing that I'm looking at images of Walt killing himself. What a pity. There's no telling what he could've gone on to create had he lived another 20 years. -
I've really lagged behind on the Disney movies I've sort of wanted to see . . . like Hunchback. Sort of want to see Anastasia too (wait, not Disney). As for why someone would rather watch 20+ episodes of Evangelion than the lastest Tarzan, maybe they want to see something actually intellectually stimulating? I get so sick of singing animals...
-
Did anyone ever hear/see the joke with them sliding Disney's cryogenic coffin around the ice rink amongst the dancing Mickey Mouses? It's Disney on ice!
-
I have been anti-Disney for as long as long as I can remember. I admit to having attended the last few Disney films and cartoons in theaters, hoping they would redeem themselves. They haven't...yet. Deep down inside I pray that Disney makes a film I am proud of. I was a Disney fan as a child, but as I've gotten older, my disgust seems to grow. I liked Tarzan, but it was not what I remember from the E.R. Burrough's stories. The Mouse has a tendency to take a great literary story and make a bastardized version that rakes in the dough. Why can't they do something original for a change and drop the cookie-cutter formula all their films now resemble. I was glad to hear some negative stuff on Walt, I always knew he was an S.O.B
-
too dark? heck I thought that's what made it cool. Howw can it be toooo dark when they dumbed it down and gave it happy ending? still, it's my favorite Disney animated flick.
-
too dark? heck I thought that's what made it cool. Howw can it be toooo dark when they dumbed it down and gave it happy ending? still, it's my favorite Disney animated flick.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 301 total posts 301 posts
- UPDATE!! What The Hell Happened With G.I. JOE: RETALIATION?! -- 185 total posts 185 posts
- THE EXORCIST Is Being Remade... -- 161 total posts 160 posts
- Remember when I said I’d kill The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day last? I lied. -- 155 total posts 155 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 145 total posts 145 posts
- Quint has seen the brand new Jaws restoration and demands that Universal do a wide theatrical rerelease this summer! -- 138 total posts 138 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 276 total posts 134 posts
- The day we've all been waiting for has arrived...IN THE ARMY NOW II is in the works! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- A New Clip From PROMETHEUS!! Charlize And Fassbender Talking About...Something (?)... -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Honest Abe Dishes Out The Vampire Violence In The New Red-Band Trailer For ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER!! -- 53 total posts 53 posts