Family friendly movies vs harry potter & shrek! (1 Viewer)

[mark alan]

It is too funny having you adults bash a movie aimed squarely at little kids. My 4 year old loved it. Based upon the weekend gross, it looks like a lot of 4 year olds liked it.

 

[Ricardo C]

"You adults"? Should I assume you are not one?

Two points, Mark:

1. Garfield's fanbase spans two generations, the older of which is the one most likely to be classified as "hardcore". So I don't think the film was made solely for "little kids".

2. Being "aimed at kids" is not a license to make a subpar product. Disney makes kid-friendly films, that are also immensely satisfying to adults. That's what a family film should be: One that has something to offer to the entire family.

 

[TheBat]

its very weird reading reviews for any movie.. if you like the movie.. and you read the reviews of the people that hated it.. its like they saw a competely different movie then I saw..

I am talking in general terms here about movies, not just about garfield.
JAOCB

 

[Rob Gardiner]

"Family" movies that I still enjoy as an adult:

anything by CHAPLIN or KEATON
KING KONG
THE WIZARD OF OZ
practically anyting with JIMMY STEWART (HARVEY, WONDERFUL LIFE, etc.)
MIRACLE ON 34th ST
Cocteau's BEAUTY & THE BEAST
WILLY WONKA
STAR WARS Trilogy
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
E.T.
SUPERMAN 1-2
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
HARRY POTTER series
most DISNEY animated features
IRON GIANT
anything from PIXAR or MIYAZAKI

Some of these films contain "adult themes" but all of them are appropriate for the entire family.

I haven't seen it (and honestly don't plan to) but I doubt that GARFIELD is worthy of inclusion on this list.

 

[Ernest Rister]

Guys, "Kids Films" and "Family Films" are two completely different things.

KIDS FILMS
----------
Care Bears in Wonderland
Rainbow Brite and the Star Stealers
Thomas the Magic Train Engine
The Wiggles Movie
Piglet's Big Adventure
The Land Before Time Part 26: It Is Fun to Hug and Share
All the dreadful direct-to-video Disney cheapquels

FAMILY FILMS
------------
Mary Poppins
Star Wars
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
Superman the Movie
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
The Wizard of Oz
A Bug's Life
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory

etc.

"Kids Films" are like "kids books" -- they are made for a target audience of toddlers and young children. Anyone older usually find them boring (or flat out bad).

"Family films" are films that play to audiences aged 7 and up. To use the literary comparison again, an adult appreciates Tom Sawyer on one level, while kids enjoy it on another. The work succeeds for both audiences.

That's why I get nitpicky when Disney films are called "children's films", because with few exceptions, they are family films.

 

[mark alan]

thank you ernest. That was exactly what I was trying to say. I didn't see Garfield (thank god) with my 4 year old, but it sounds like it is solely a kids movie.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Thank you for making that distinction, Ernest. I have edited my post appropriately. Unfortunately, most places that sell DVDs mix the Disney classics in with Blues Clues and Barney the Dinosaur.


Jacob,

I think your arguments will be better received by the appropriate audience -- Mark's kid and other 4 year olds who are apparently the target audience for this picture. Also, there is a thread on the topic of "films you loved that everyone else hated". I honestly thought I was the only person who enjoyed HUDSON HAWK (besides 2 of my friends in San Francisco) but I was the 3rd person in the thread to mention that particular film. THE STRANGER's review of Spielberg's A.I. stated, "you will be the only person you know who likes this film" and other than fans I've met on the Internet, that has turned out to be true so far. I still maintain that Shrek 2 and Harry Potter are more family-friendly than Garfield appears to be.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Unfortunately, most places that sell DVDs mix the Disney classics in with Blues Clues and Barney the Dinosaur."

I blame Disney for that, for marketing their films as kids films. There was an old commercial for the home video release of Bambi way back in 1989 or so. A little toddler girl sits in front of a TV watching Bambi with a big grin on her face (the only scenes shown are of young Bambi meeting Flower for the first time, and Thumper rolling on his tummy laughing). Meanwhile, her mother watches from a doorway with a big warm smile on her face. The mother's voice-over tells us this is the 5th time the girl has watched the film.

I wonder if they showed that little toddler any of the last 20 minutes of Bambi, starting with the scene where Bambi's mother gets shot, or the scene with the female quail getting blasted out of the sky and her lifeless body dropping into the frame, or the animals running in fear as animated "squibs" burst around them, or the scenes with the snarling hunting dogs, or the scene where Bambi himself gets shot, or any scenes of the whole forest burning down as animals flee for their lives...

MOTHER
(V.O.)
She's watched Bambi five times...and next week, I'm going to show her Old Yeller, and then the week after that I'm going to show her Jaws! We hope to have her up to Halloween by October, because I've made the cutest little Michael Meyers outfit!

(cue Halloween theme as toddler watches the violent climax of Bambi in a lonely, trembling huddle on the floor)

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I agree that the DREADFUL Disney DTV DVDs qualify as kid flicks. I don't agree that all the DTV DVDs are dreadful, though. There are a few good ones...

 

[Nathan Eddy]

Jack Briggs, please accept my apologies. I didn't mean to stir up any controversy. Given a complete reading of this entire thread, I thought my comments were right on topic with some of the issues being discussed here. There is, admittedly, a lot of talk about Garfield, but there is also quite a lot of discussion about the assupmtions underlying the title of this thread, and what criteria we use to describe a movie as "family-friendly." But I will, of course, cede to your empowered opinion on this matter.

 

[Ernest Rister]

The Disney Cheapquels directly led to the destruction of hand-drawn animation at Disney. They demonstrated that cheap animation whoring off the reputation of existing properties can rake in $125 million in domestic retail recipts, and the greed of the Consumer Products division led Disney to glut the market with cheap crap -- which diluted the event status of Disney animation and directly chepaened the Disney brand name.

They are an abomination to me. Roy Disney and (real) Disney animators also are highly critical of them. I have never *ever* spent money on a Disney DTV cheapquel, and I never will. My sister accidentally bought "The Lion King 1 1/2", thinking she was buying "The Lion King". I gave her my copy of The Lion King in exchange for her LK 1 1/2, ordered a new LK off e*bay, and threw the unopened "LK 1 1/2" DVD in the garbage -- where it belongs. "Oh, but LK 1 1/2 is very funny and witty and you might actually like it and blah blah blah blah"

Is it a direct to Disney cheapquel? That's all I need to know. You might as well try to get me to watch a colorized version of It's A Wonderful Life. "Oh but they did a good job and you might actually like it and blah blah blah blah." Is it a colorized classic? That's all I need to know. No thanks, no sale.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Now that's funny.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

At least you're open-minded. :rolleyes

(And if you literally threw away the LK 1.5 DVD, that's just nuts. Don't watch it, but at least give it away to someone who might enjoy it...)

 

[Ernest Rister]

I'm not open-minded about colorization.
I'm not open-minded making "cheapquel" knock-offs to the films of long-dead artists who are not around to defend themselves.
I'm not open-minded about the business practices of Michael Eisner that directly led to the destruction of hand-drawn feature animation.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

So it's the DTV DVDs that killed cel animation, not the fact that the theatrical movies bombed?

 

[Marvin Richardson]

Do you know why they make so much money? Because kids don't care about all that. All they know is that it is their favorite Disney characters and no amount of explaining to them that it just isn't the same will do. They want to see them, and I'm sorry, but my personal opinions about the quality of the "films" in question aren't good enough to justify keeping a 9 year old from watching them, even though I think they are complete and utter garbage (the one's I've seen anyway).

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Why would the artists need to "defend" themselves?"

Walt Disney - throughout his life - refused to make sequels to his hit animated features. "You can't top pigs with pigs" he said famously, referring to Three Little Pigs and its sequels that failed to catch fire. The only animated features Walt wanted to make sequels to were Fantasia (which was never made in his lifetime) and Saludos Amigos.

Walt is dead -- he isn't here to object (even though Roy Disney objects strongly to the DTVs), but nevertheless, here comes Eisner, with his Cinderella 2, Lady and the Tramp 2, Dumbo 2, Jungle Book 2, 101 Dalmatians 2, Peter Pan 2 -- he planned on an all CGI DTV sequel to Bambi (the project is in turnaround), a Sleeping Beauty 2 is in the works, it shouldn't be long now before we hear of a low-budget Pinocchio 2 and a low-budget cheapie Snow White 2.

"Do you know why they make so much money? Because kids don't care about all that."

Kids don't buy these things, parents do. Its the wide swath of parents out there who think Disney animated finding Nemo, Spirit, and Ice Age -- its these masses who don't care about the morality of making sequels to Disney's films without his permission (and over the objections of Roy). These people just pick up the latest VHS video babysitter off the checkout line, slap it into the VCR to get their kids to shut up for 90 minutes.

"So it's the DTV DVDs that killed cel animation, not the fact that the theatrical movies bombed?"

* The DTV's glutted the market, along with the Gold Collection.
* Because they are subpar to the standards of Disney feature Animation, they eroded the value of the Disney brand name (another reason Roy Disney was so upset).
* By glutting the market with low-budget junk, it became the 1970's all over again, with the Waltless Disney Comapny dumping low-budget children's comedies into theaters. After years of this, you couldn't drag teenagers and adults into a Disney film with a bulldozer. The quality stuff (Tex, Never Cry Wolf) tanked because the name "Disney" was anathema to the teen audience that was beginning to become the largest cinema-going demographic.
* The DTVs were strictly made for children, they are "kids films", which also flies in the face of Walt's edict that his company make family films, not films for children.
* By pumping out low budget, cheaply made junk for kids, this removed the Event Status of Disney Animation, and turned hand-drawn animation into a home video event, not a theatrical event. Treasure Planet is Disney's biggest theatrical flops, yet was one of top 50 best selling DVDs of 2003.

Yes, the DTVs had a lot to do with the destruction of hand drawn feature animation at Disney. That's Eisner all over, though -- on the day the Orlando Studio closed, the President of Disney Feature Animation held a meeting with all the animators. He was directly challenged on why they had glutted the market with the DTVs, and the President said that their market research showed that the people who were buying the DTV sequels couldn't tell the difference between the low-budget made-for-video films, and the work of the Disney Feature Animation department.

You guys do what you want, buy what you want, I don't care. I really don't, I'm just explaining myself. Some of you like Fantasia/2000 better than Fantasia, if you like The Jungle Book 2 more than Walt's Jungle Book, more power to you. Eat your heart out.

There will be no DTVs in my family's video collection, just as there wouldn't be a colorized Citizen Kane or a sequel made to Casablanca. And I suspect some of you who think I'm overreating are going to feel differently once Disney starts making low-budget DTV sequels to the Pixar titles -- some of you are already angry over the planned "Toy Story 3" which will be made without Pixar's involvement -- well when I see "Cinderella 2", to me it's no different than low-budget, direct-to-video kiddie sequels such as the future "A Bug's Life 2", "Monsters, Inc. 2", "Finding Nemo 2", "The Incredibles 2", "Cars 2". Sequels made without the consent and against the wishes of the original creators. Sound familiar?

 

[Mark-W]

Ernest,

I agree with you and your passions on the subject, but families with kids don't care about Disney downgrading their product, even if that was a death nell for theatrical-quality animated films.

I am an uncle whose has two newphews and and niece, and I can tell you they enjoy the DTVs. Personally, I cannot stomach them because the animation kinda' sucks. (I even remember when Ebert gave Aladdin: The Prince of Theives, a moderately favorable review (from home video), and I rented it and thought, "Did he only care about the story and not care that the animation is horrible?"

I have had to sit through some since when I hang out with the aforementioned kids, and the animation has, in general, improved, but one only look at any of the theatrical releases from Disney's early era, even rushed, budget effort like Dumbo, to see how inferior the DTVs are not only in craftmanship, but
in spirit.

I have not personally concluded that
"DTVS = end of feature animation,"
but I don't rule it out either.
Eisner has, without any doubt in my mind,
destroyed the thought
"Disney = quality animation."

He cannot leave the House of the Mouse soon enough.

It has become the House of the Rat.

 

[Ernest Rister]

There are multiple reasons for the death of hand-drawn animation (Disney hasn't made a truly great animated film in many a moon). Their films became highly compromised, weakly written, and penny-pinched to death. They also released too many films into the theaters, which also downgraded the event status. One of the larger sins was the release of the DTV cheapquel junk into theaters and passed off as a Disney animated feature. The DTV glut (the very existence of the DTVs) another large factor.

Yes there are many, many reasons for the death of Disney hand drawn feature animation. Corporate Greed is at the top of the list.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Again, you've lumped in all of the sequels with those made for older Disney flicks. Your argument doesn't hold up for the newer ones, since a lot of the same talent worked on them (at least in the voice realm).

As for being angry about the sequels... whether for Pixar or older or whatever, they don't bother me, because they don't affect the original. This isn't a matter of hypocrisy, that I don't care about sequels to musty oldies but will flip out if they make Toy Story 3 without Pixar. They can make as many as they want - it doesn't affect my opinions of the others. If Disney tampered with the original flicks, that'd be an issue, but they can toss out as many crappy DTV sequels as they want - it doesn't affect my thoughts about the originals.

I continue to think it's a stretch to blame the demise of cel animation on the "cheapquels". Their existence doesn't bother me at all, though the vast majority DO suck. I've watched almost all of them, and only a handful are entertaining. Teens won't go to see cel animation because of all the DTV DVDs? I don't agree with that.