The 'Fuck You, Disney' Thread

[mothman]

Which country's lighthouse inserts will they use?

The American one, obviously, since going by the interesting post from Chriddof on the last page, chances are the other countries' inserts either don't survive at all or are not in a format suitable for Blu-Ray conversion.

EDIT: Bollocks new page AGAIN. Second time today. I meant "on the last page but one." Or, if you will, page 2.

[Phoenix Lazarus]

<---------- Steamboat Willie is funnier than anything WB put out. Mickey is a right little fucker in it.

Isn't there a scene in that where a bad guy tries to kick Mickey up the behind, and Mickey dodges quickly out of the way, then the kicking guy's foot goes into his own face?

[St_Eddie]

Isn't there a scene in that where a bad guy tries to kick Mickey up the behind, and Mickey dodges quickly out of the way, then the kicking guy's foot goes into his own face?

Yes, there is.

[Replies From View]

Mickey is a right little fucker in it.

[St_Eddie]

Animal abuse is a jolly old jape. Smoking is evil. ~ Disney's motto

[Urinal Cake]

Disney once made 'art' not art-art but good commercial art. Disney as well as other studios had multiple IPs on the go so there was an element of experimentation. Disney also famously had 'no film sequels'  to their animated movies.

I doubt an F&F or Saw equivalent franchise of the early 2000s would be given the chance to develop in the market now.

Fuck you, Disney.

[St_Eddie]

Fuck you, Disney.

That's the spirit!

[madhair60]

Aw no not Fast and Furious and Saw! What a loss :'(

[greenman]

Honestly though family friendly blockbusters have been the mainstay of the market since the mid 90's haven't they? Verhoeven tearing people to bits with squibs in big blockbusters was a distant memory far before Disney rose to dominance.

I think you could argue there negative impact is moreso that they have limited interest in any kind of more serious cinema, other studios might claim that a blockbuster was supporting the release of something more ambitious but Disney don't really want anything the least bit edgy associated with them.

In terms of what puts me off of going to the cinema more often though by far the biggest issue is the profusion of bland "adult" dramas and comedies,  the unambitious crap the british film industry especially is the master of post Four Weddings/Full Monty, this and US Oscar bait seems to fill up most of the non blockbuster space at pretty much every cinema outside of a few big cities.

[Urinal Cake]

Aw no not Fast and Furious and Saw! What a loss :'(

This is a pretty easy layup. You could argue without F&F there would be no Gal Gadot as Wonderwoman. And without Saw there'd be no James Wan for Aquaman. Imagine Marvel/Disney hegemony if DC/WB hadn't got their shit together due to the chance these people got.

I don't particularly like both these franchises but when is diversity and choice a bad thing? Particularly F&F which was a popular franchiise whose cast was predominantly PoC and featured 'strong(er) women'. Pretty remarkable for a macho enterprise of guys, guns and cars.  It's something Disney talks alot about but something F&F actually does.

[Timothy]

Wonderwoman was a horrible film though.

And people are still defending cigarettes in movies? artistic choices? Mate. They arent. Theyre free advertising. No need for cigarettes in movies.

[SavageHedgehog]

I think Saw-style franchises are still possible and indeed still happening to some extent; e.g. The Conjuring "cinematic universe", the Happy Death Day films, I'm sure the wheels are being turned as we speak to make Escape Plan into the 2020s PG-13 Saw equivalent. Horror is pretty safe because it's a low cost, high profit model for success.

Another Fast and Furious-style franchise? Yeah, probably not possible to launch in the current climate.

This isn't going to happen. They won't edit that out. It's Fake News sir.

I'm not sure about this either. It's been about ten years since I've seen it, but wouldn't that make the film just end? Be easier to just not have it on there, or just clips or something.

[madhair60]

This is a pretty easy layup. You could argue without F&F there would be no Gal Gadot as Wonderwoman. And without Saw there'd be no James Wan for Aquaman. Imagine Marvel/Disney hegemony if DC/WB hadn't got their shit together due to the chance these people got.

I don't particularly like both these franchises but when is diversity and choice a bad thing? Particularly F&F which was a popular franchiise whose cast was predominantly PoC and featured 'strong(er) women'. Pretty remarkable for a macho enterprise of guys, guns and cars.  It's something Disney talks alot about but something F&F actually does.

I was just being a twat to be honest. I quite like both those series's.

[jobotic]

Should we have guns in films?

I watched Dumbo on Disney Life streaming thing only yesterday. Crows are still there.

[Jerzy Bondov]

I been done seen 'bout ev'rything when I see a cut of Dumbo without the crow scene

[Timothy]

Should we have guns in films?

I watched Dumbo on Disney Life streaming thing only yesterday. Crows are still there.

The guns and cigarettes in films comparison makes absolutely zero sense. There are almost no movies that need cigarettes in storylines. Except ofcourse films like Thank You For Smoking. Otherwise they dont add anything to stories, visuals and movies in general. A cigarette in movies ban is a good thing.

[Swoz_MK]

Have you seen the "redux" version?  https://youtu.be/Y6P8T_IWVUw

I hadn't! Excellent!

[Noodle Lizard]

The guns and cigarettes in films comparison makes absolutely zero sense. There are almost no movies that need cigarettes in storylines. Except ofcourse films like Thank You For Smoking. Otherwise they dont add anything to stories, visuals and movies in general. A cigarette in movies ban is a good thing.

Smoking is a part of our world.  Movies (and other art forms) reflect our world, primarily.  It seems a little utterly bizarre to suggest they should never depict something that around 20% of the world's population, from all ethnicities and classes, indulge in both socially and privately.  Also, if you don't think cigarettes have been used well visually or in terms of character-building, then I don't know what to say except I feel bad for you.

[colacentral]

Disney once made 'art' not art-art but good commercial art. Disney as well as other studios had multiple IPs on the go so there was an element of experimentation. Disney also famously had 'no film sequels'  to their animated movies.

I doubt an F&F or Saw equivalent franchise of the early 2000s would be given the chance to develop in the market now.

Fuck you, Disney.

This is a bizarre claim. What about John Wick, for example? Or The Conjuring, as mentioned. I can't see how that claim is based in any kind of evidence.

Honestly though family friendly blockbusters have been the mainstay of the market since the mid 90's haven't they? Verhoeven tearing people to bits with squibs in big blockbusters was a distant memory far before Disney rose to dominance.

I think you could argue there negative impact is moreso that they have limited interest in any kind of more serious cinema, other studios might claim that a blockbuster was supporting the release of something more ambitious but Disney don't really want anything the least bit edgy associated with them.

In terms of what puts me off of going to the cinema more often though by far the biggest issue is the profusion of bland "adult" dramas and comedies,  the unambitious crap the british film industry especially is the master of post Four Weddings/Full Monty, this and US Oscar bait seems to fill up most of the non blockbuster space at pretty much every cinema outside of a few big cities.

Yeah, spot on; what I was trying to say about the Arnie dreck of the 90's, the Lost in Space's, The Mummy franchise with Scorpion King spinoffs etc. As if pre-Iron Man it was a golden age of quality blockbusters. They were churning out superhero films for years before that, like X-Men, Daredevil, Catwoman etc, and they were 90% bobbins.

And as you say, the big issue isn't so much that they aren't making dramas etc for an adult audience - it's the dearth of both talent and criticism producing and lapping up utter crap. Widows and Us are two recent films that got rave reviews but which I thought were really pretty horrendous stinkers, but the bar is that low now.

I think there are other issues affecting the quality of the arts really - social media and YouTube, less people reading, economic issues etc that are bad for fostering creativity.

[Gerald Fjord]

Anyone with these shit opinions on cigarettes in movies needs to go and watch Out of the Past and shut their stupid fucking mouths.

[madhair60]

Anyone with these shit opinions on cigarettes in movies needs to go and watch Out of the Past and shut their stupid fucking mouths.

Is it a Disney?

[Gerald Fjord]

Shut your stupid fucking mouth

[jobotic]

Fags were quite important in Lucky too.

[Replies From View]

Smoking is a part of our world.  Movies (and other art forms) reflect our world, primarily.  It seems a little utterly bizarre to suggest they should never depict something that around 20% of the world's population, from all ethnicities and classes, indulge in both socially and privately.  Also, if you don't think cigarettes have been used well visually or in terms of character-building, then I don't know what to say except I feel bad for you.

It's a bit like saying knife crime is part of the London scene so movies should help normalise it in the process of reflecting it.

Also, again, we are talking about films targeted at young impressionable people.  As well as restrictions on nicotine promotion there are also limits now on how fast food can be marketed to them, and probably other things.  I have no understanding at all of why this should cause such a stir to anyone who doesn't make money from it.

[madhair60]

Shut your stupid fucking mouth

I just checked and it actually is a Disney.

Now whose stupid???

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

It's a bit like saying knife crime is part of the London scene so movies should help normalise it in the process of reflecting it.

Also, again, we are talking about films targeted at young impressionable people.  As well as restrictions on nicotine promotion there are also limits now on how fast food can be marketed to them, and probably other things.  I have no understanding at all of why this should cause such a stir to anyone who doesn't make money from it.

You just don't get it, do you? Principals are inviolable. Not like you, with all your "nuance".

Never compromise! Never sell out! Never think things through!

[Replies From View]

You just don't get it, do you? Principals are inviolable. Not like you, with all your "nuance".

Never compromise! Never sell out! Never think things through!

What's this you're saying now?

I don't think cigarettes should be marketed to children.  Call me holier-than-thou if that's what the above rant is getting at, but it's the wacky viewpoint I have and yes I'm sticking with it.

[jobotic]

I agree completely about films marketed at children, but I thought earlier in the thread it was said that there is no room for cigarettes in any films.

[madhair60]

In addition to the removal of cigarettes from all future films, i'd also like to see them digitally removed from existing flicks and replaced with Chupa Chups.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Isn't West Side Story about gang violence?