High School Musical

[puzzlebox]

Originally Posted by Friar

I don't think the princess and the frog is out over here yet.

The Princess and the Frog is out in the UK (it's showing in cinemas now).

Originally Posted by Friar

Pixar on the other hand has always remained constant, although i didn't think they were owned by disney as such.

Pixar has been owned by Disney for a few years now. John Lasseter is the head of both studios.

Maybe one factor in Pixar's consistent awesomeness is that they've been making movies for a much shorter time than Disney, hence less time to screw up the track record.

[Olaus Petrus]

I haven't seen the Highschool Musical, but I can safely say that I would hate it, because of two reasons.

First: I hate musicals. I can't stand that genre of movies. I can't understand why some people actually think that the Sound of Music is a great movie. There's annoying woman and annoying kids singing even more annoying songs. And there isn't enough words to describe how much I hate Travolta's Grease, which has most effeminate "cool guys" I have ever seen.

Second: While I have nothing against teenagers in general, but I hate those loud mouthed people who hang in the malls. And I also hate this MTV/Disney teen culture and I would rather gouge my own eyes out than watch an episode of My Super Sweet 16. That culture seems to have values which are near the opposite of my own values.

But everyone has their own preferences and I don't condemn anyone if they have different taste than I have.

[GaryCXJk]

Originally Posted by tredlow

Disney made The Princess And The Frog, Meet The Robinsons, Enchanted, etc., and I can still enjoy some of them, while Disney Channel made High School Musical and all those pre-teen stuff.

The Suite Life of Zack and Cody is still fun though for a television series aimed at pre-teens. Also, Phineas and Ferb premiered on Disney Channel, and I happen to like it. Probably so do a lot of people from all ages apparently.

The thing that also grinds my gears though is the hate Disney receives and the fact that people who like Disney are suddenly "ghey".

[tredlow]

Originally Posted by Friar

I don't think the princess and the frog is out over here yet. And the other two films, whilst reasonably good, missed the classic disney charm.

Yeah, Meet the Robinsons aren't that good. But i love how Disney can make fun of themselves in Enchanted.

[Thriftweed Fancy Pants]

Originally Posted by Olaus Petrus

But everyone has their own preferences and I don't condemn anyone if they have different taste than I have.

I freely condemn shallow TV shows by Disney and Nickelodeon. It's wrong (WRONG) to influence kids to aspire for fame and money and superficial relationships. I hate it. With a passion. I literally feel sick when I realize that my younger siblings not only have to deal with peer pressure at school, but also pressure from large corporations who promote shallow motives on TV in the name of being fashionable and cool in the eyes of kids. It's disgusting.

Now, I haven't seen High School Musical, so I can't say whether it falls into this category or not, but I've seen enough to condemn Disney and Nickelodeon for what they're doing these days. My sister is almost thirteen, making her the target audience for TeenNick. Right now, TeenNick has a link on their front page to Make-Out Mash-Ups, the purpose of which is to allow kids to make a music video using clips from Nickelodeon shows with kids making out. Meanwhile, a spoiled Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana) is making a fortune off her song, "Party in the U.S.A.," in which she references such wonderful role models as Jay-Z and Brittany Spears, and sings about how she wants to fit into the world of fame and excess. It's all so ridiculous and unbelievably shallow. How can anyone support any of the garbage that's being pushed at kids these days?

[Olaus Petrus]

Originally Posted by Thriftweed Fancy Pants

I freely condemn shallow TV shows by Disney and Nickelodeon. It's wrong (WRONG) to influence kids to aspire for fame and money and superficial relationships. I hate it. With a passion. I literally feel sick when I realize that my younger siblings not only have to deal with peer pressure at school, but also pressure from large corporations who promote shallow motives on TV in the name of being fashionable and cool in the eyes of kids. It's disgusting.

Now, I haven't seen High School Musical, so I can't say whether it falls into this category or not, but I've seen enough to condemn Disney and Nickelodeon for what they're doing these days. My sister is almost thirteen, making her the target audience for TeenNick. Right now, TeenNick has a link on their front page to Make-Out Mash-Ups, the purpose of which is to allow kids to make a music video using clips from Nickelodeon shows with kids making out. Meanwhile, a spoiled Miley Cyrus (Hannah Montana) is making a fortune off her song, "Party in the U.S.A.," in which she references such wonderful role models as Jay-Z and Brittany Spears, and sings about how she wants to fit into the world of fame and excess. It's all so ridiculous and unbelievably shallow. How can anyone support any of the garbage that's being pushed at kids these days?

Yep, I agree that it goes bit too far sometimes. I think that these days kids learn about adult stuff too early and sometimes the consquences are just awful. Like in the case of the little sister of that Cyrus girl, who was dressed up like a prostitute, in the tabloids few days back. Tabloids were trying to create moral outrage and I have to say that it's easy to agree with tabloids this time (even though I generally disagree with the tabloid people), because many conservative people (like me) find the idea of dressing up little girls to adult clothes disgusting. Celebrities are horrible role models for children, because their values are so far from the normal values.

[Friar]

Originally Posted by puzzlebox

The Princess and the Frog is out in the UK (it's showing in cinemas now).



Pixar has been owned by Disney for a few years now. John Lasseter is the head of both studios.

Maybe one factor in Pixar's consistent awesomeness is that they've been making movies for a much shorter time than Disney, hence less time to screw up the track record.

Ah, i apologise for that. I hadn't heard much about it, and haven't been to the cinema in about a year. Has it been out long?

But my point still stands, and perhaps even emphasises it a little. Whenever a popular company changes it's marketing target, they will always have alot of hatred by the established fanbase towards them, and that product. Take Nintendo and the wii. They changed their marketing to attract new gamers, with the likes of wii fit etc. They continued to make games for the 'core gamer' at pretty much the same rate (albeit they messed up on their timings a little), but everyone is blinded by their hatred, and the wii is nought but a target for hatred, even amongst nintendo fanboys. In fact, Disney/nintendo are quite similair in that respect. Both have a huge library of established films/games, most of which are still playable/watchable (DVD special editions, Virtual console/built-in-GC).

[Emily]

Originally Posted by Friar

Old disney produced films that were likable by people of all ages, and taught valuable life lessons, where as now (or at least during the past few years) they produce this pre-teen only stuff. Nowadays, if i go into the disney store, it's full of HSM stuff, and not filled with childhood memories of Lion King, or classic films like that.

It's funny you should say this, because for me, The Lion King was when Disney jumped the shark. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin - I loved 'em. But Lion King was the beginning of the end.

I've never seen High School Musical, but I'll admit to being annoyed by the hype. I do like the TV show Glee. But I usually fast forward through the songs.

[puzzlebox]

Originally Posted by Emily

I've never seen High School Musical, but I'll admit to being annoyed by the hype. I do like the TV show Glee. But I usually fast forward through the songs.

HSM is basically Glee without two very important components: irony, and Jane Lynch.

[Friar]

Originally Posted by Emily

It's funny you should say this, because for me, The Lion King was when Disney jumped the shark. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin - I loved 'em. But Lion King was the beginning of the end.

Was that because it was disney's first onscreen death? It definately has a more mature theme that the older films, but i love the songs!

[Avistew]

It's funny you should say this, because for me, The Lion King was when Disney jumped the shark. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin - I loved 'em. But Lion King was the beginning of the end.

I loved Lion King. And Mulan. But pretty much nothing in between... Then Brother Bear, and the Pixar movies... Chicken Little was nice, but in a completely different way, still doesn't feel like a Disney to me. I think the 3D is for a lot in that, I just can't enjoy a 3D movie in the same way.

Although I liked Beauty and the Beast, I never liked Little Mermaid, and I disliked several of the oldest ones, too, despite watching them quite often. In my opinion, Disney started going down with Mulan. Mulan: fail. Hercules, Hunchback: fail. Mulan got them back up but since then good Disney movies have been few and far between.

Oh, and Tarzan wasn't bad, especially compared to the book.

As far as the old ones go... Although they're classics, I never liked any of the fairy tale ones (cinderella, sleeping beauty, snow white), although Beauty and the Beast is different because of the genius of the talking items. Lumière and whatever Big Ben is originally called (something -worth I think) saved the movie. I never liked pinocchio and I dislike most of the animal ones, although I liked them at the time.
Actually I realise there aren't many that I still like. And I owned them all (except for Bambi, which I watched a few years ago for the first time. I really wish I could have that hour and twenty minutes of my life back).

I'd say Disney mostly went downhill when they decided to make sequels for everything. I can't think of a single "something 2" that was really worth it. They're at best okay, and usually horrible.

[Friar]

Originally Posted by avistew

I loved Lion King. And Mulan. But pretty much nothing in between... Then Brother Bear, and the Pixar movies... Chicken Little was nice, but in a completely different way, still doesn't feel like a Disney to me. I think the 3D is for a lot in that, I just can't enjoy a 3D movie in the same way.

Although I liked Beauty and the Beast, I never liked Little Mermaid, and I disliked several of the oldest ones, too, despite watching them quite often. In my opinion, Disney started going down with Mulan. Mulan: fail. Hercules, Hunchback: fail. Mulan got them back up but since then good Disney movies have been few and far between.

Oh, and Tarzan wasn't bad, especially compared to the book.

As far as the old ones go... Although they're classics, I never liked any of the fairy tale ones (cinderella, sleeping beauty, snow white), although Beauty and the Beast is different because of the genius of the talking items. Lumière and whatever Big Ben is originally called (something -worth I think) saved the movie. I never liked pinocchio and I dislike most of the animal ones, although I liked them at the time.
Actually I realise there aren't many that I still like. And I owned them all (except for Bambi, which I watched a few years ago for the first time. I really wish I could have that hour and twenty minutes of my life back).

I'd say Disney mostly went downhill when they decided to make sequels for everything. I can't think of a single "something 2" that was really worth it. They're at best okay, and usually horrible.

Ah, brother bear. I love that film. And i loved The hunchback, although i believer that film was created with the intention of trying to make Disney look less foreign to the french, to make more people visit the then failing eurodisney (now disneyland paris). I have fond memories of visiting during that time, and being dragged into the parade and made to dance with some gypsies, and given a cardboard crown. *sighs*

[Secret Fawful]

Originally Posted by Emily

It's funny you should say this, because for me, The Lion King was when Disney jumped the shark. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, and Aladdin - I loved 'em. But Lion King was the beginning of the end.

Wow, can you elaborate more on that? Was it just because it wasn't your typical movie about princesses and evil sorcerors, or was it because it used CGI in the stampede scene? For me, The Lion King is one of Disney's greatest masterpieces. It has all of those elements that make a story great, from a hero you can empathize with to great comic relief, offset by tragedy and a cunning villain. (Although Scar was actually a bit of a basic loser in the second half.)

And what about The Hunchback of Notre Dame? It's completely Disney's most mature story. It took its audience seriously. (except for those friggin gargoyles which drive me up the wall) Again, IMO, it had the best villain and character development Disney ever had, and none of the scenes were wasted. Again, IMO, a masterpiece that has unfortunately been swept under the rug. Sorry, but your statement just completely blew me away. Then again, I look at a film not just basically, but I study the art, the movement, the expressions, the writing, everything. For me a film is well made when all of those things fit together, like a puzzle.

[Avistew]

And what about The Hunchback of Notre Dame?

I guess I just felt that Notre-Dame is a good book, so changing it wasn't a good idea... See, Aladdin is totally different from the story, but that's a good thing. Similarly, Tarzan differed in good ways (in my opinion).

However, making Phoebus a good guy just makes no sense to me. He's one of the main villains! And Frollo only makes sense as a Catholic priest who has to fight between his sexual attraction towards Esmeralda and his belief that as a priest, he can't have sex, and just being attracted to her is a sin, the opposition between the two driving him to madness. Turning him into a lawyer of some sort? Where is the contradiction then? Lawyers are allowed to be sexually attracted to people.
He was scary because the simple fact that Esmeralda existed caused him to be attracted to her, and therefore to sin, in his mind, therefore, she needed to die. Without having ever interacted with him, she was a threat to him because he saw her dance. That was powerfully scary.

Now I realise that it being a Disney, they had to change a lot of things. They couldn't have the original thing: everyone lusts after Esmeralda, who is innocent and doesn't really realises what's happening, but gets killed because of the men who desired her - Frollo because her existence threatens his religious beliefs, Phoebus because he needs his wife to have faith in him again.
But then, why choose that as a Disney movie? Might as well pick Romeo & Juliet or Les Misérables. Some stories are famous because they end badly, turning them into a happy story can only change the whole point of them. It kinda worked with some of the stories (the Little Mermaid for instance) but for some I think it's removing the whole point of the story. As I said, Romeo & Juliet, if it ends well, is just one of thousands of love stories, it's because they both die that it's so famous.

Anyway, didn't realise it was meant to please the French. I don't know a single French person who liked that movie. Beauty and the Beast was done much better I feel, if you want to go into the whole "based on something French" thing. Which you don't have to, really. Actually I think people are even more critical if it's based on a story that's part of their culture, so I don't think it appeals to a country more if you adapt a story from there.

[Olaus Petrus]

I have always thought that best Disney has ever produced were the old Donald Duck shorts of the 30's and 40's. I have seen some of their old animated features, like Bambi and Fantasia, but Robin Hood is their newest animated feature I have seen.

[Secret Fawful]

Originally Posted by avistew

I guess I just felt that Notre-Dame is a good book, so changing it wasn't a good idea... See, Aladdin is totally different from the story, but that's a good thing. Similarly, Tarzan differed in good ways (in my opinion).

However, making Phoebus a good guy just makes no sense to me. He's one of the main villains! And Frollo only makes sense as a Catholic priest who has to fight between his sexual attraction towards Esmeralda and his belief that as a priest, he can't have sex, and just being attracted to her is a sin, the opposition between the two driving him to madness. Turning him into a lawyer of some sort? Where is the contradiction then? Lawyers are allowed to be sexually attracted to people.
He was scary because the simple fact that Esmeralda existed caused him to be attracted to her, and therefore to sin, in his mind, therefore, she needed to die. Without having ever interacted with him, she was a threat to him because he saw her dance. That was powerfully scary.

Now I realise that it being a Disney, they had to change a lot of things. They couldn't have the original thing: everyone lusts after Esmeralda, who is innocent and doesn't really realises what's happening, but gets killed because of the men who desired her - Frollo because her existence threatens his religious beliefs, Phoebus because he needs his wife to have faith in him again.
But then, why choose that as a Disney movie? Might as well pick Romeo & Juliet or Les Misérables. Some stories are famous because they end badly, turning them into a happy story can only change the whole point of them. It kinda worked with some of the stories (the Little Mermaid for instance) but for some I think it's removing the whole point of the story. As I said, Romeo & Juliet, if it ends well, is just one of thousands of love stories, it's because they both die that it's so famous.

Anyway, didn't realise it was meant to please the French. I don't know a single French person who liked that movie. Beauty and the Beast was done much better I feel, if you want to go into the whole "based on something French" thing. Which you don't have to, really. Actually I think people are even more critical if it's based on a story that's part of their culture, so I don't think it appeals to a country more if you adapt a story from there.

See, you're nitpicking for nitpicking sake. Disney has every right to adapt the story, and if you don't like it, then you don't have to watch it. However, I like the changes they made more than the original, outside of Frollo being a lawyer. However, Frollo wasn't really a lawyer, he was a judge. And back in those days, judges had a lot of power over the people and the city. The whole reason Disney made him a judge was to give him more power so they could actually make him MORE frightening and believable as the villain, because they felt that how he was in the book wasn't villainous enough. In the movie, he ended up WANTING to love Esmerelda. He literally gave her an ultimatum. Love me or be burned to death.

Frollo saw the lust he felt as a sin against God, and saw all lust as such. You don't need to be a priest to have twisted beliefs and morals. I think the fact that he burned down a city, murdered many, tried to burn her at the stake, eradicate a people, and tortured an innocent child makes him a pretty strong villain, and if anything Disney took a risk adapting the story as they did at all. And they know that, and that's why they've swept the movie under the rug so to speak. I'm not a purist. I don't need to see it exactly how it was in the book. If they made it how it was in the book, the movie would have been six hours long and rated NC-17.

Pheobus is a villain in the book. He's not a villain in the movie. In the movie he's a different character, and I liked his character in the movie. I also liked his character in the book. Everything in the movie just fits for the sake of the movie, and everything in the book fits for the sake of the book. Both versions work.

[Friar]

Originally Posted by Secret Fawful

See, you're nitpicking for nitpicking sake. Disney has every right to adapt the story, and if you don't like it, then you don't have to watch it. However, I like the changes they made more than the original, outside of Frollo being a lawyer. However, Frollo wasn't really a lawyer, he was a judge. And back in those days, judges had a lot of power over the people and the city. The whole reason Disney made him a judge was to give him more power so they could actually make him MORE frightening and believable as the villain, because they felt that how he was in the book wasn't villainous enough. In the movie, he ended up WANTING to love Esmerelda. He literally gave her an ultimatum. Love me or be burned to death.

Frollo saw the lust he felt as a sin against God, and saw all lust as such. You don't need to be a priest to have twisted beliefs and morals. I think the fact that he burned down a city, murdered many, tried to burn her at the stake, eradicate a people, and tortured an innocent child makes him a pretty strong villain, and if anything Disney took a risk adapting the story as they did at all. And they know that, and that's why they've swept the movie under the rug so to speak. I'm not a purist. I don't need to see it exactly how it was in the book. If they made it how it was in the book, the movie would have been six hours long and rated NC-17.

Pheobus is a villain in the book. He's not a villain in the movie. In the movie he's a different character, and I liked his character in the movie. I also liked his character in the book. Everything in the movie just fits for the sake of the movie, and everything in the book fits for the sake of the book. Both versions work.

I really need to read the book. What you've said makes sense. To relate it to something else, a similair (well kind of) thing happened with the new startrek reboot. There are quite a few trekkies who hate it, claiming that it disregards canon (the whole change the past change the future thing was totally ignored, for example). I for one really enjoyed it, seeing it for what it was;a tribute, and a reboot.

[Avistew]

Originally Posted by Secret Fawful

See, you're nitpicking for nitpicking sake.

No, I'm not. I agree that they had the rights to change it however they wanted to, like they do with all their movies. And I happened not to like the changes they made. I tried to explain why to you in my previous post, but ultimately, it doesn't matter much since it's opinion.

I disagree that making him a judge gave him more power. There wasn't any separation of Church and State at the time, Frollo had plenty power in the original story. I hated that change because it felt to me like Disney was just afraid that people might think they were criticising religion, and chickened out.

The other changes wouldn't have annoyed me quite as much. If you're turning a sad story into a happy story, obviously you need less villains and more good guys. It just added up, I guess.

I can see how you need to see the movie in its own right, and that's why I said I feel it would be enjoyed less by French audiences. Because French audiences are more familiar with the original work, and changing it might affect them more. While someone seeing the Disney movie as a first introduction has no reason to be upset about the things I didn't like.

But it's really a matter of taste. I wouldn't say they changed the original story more than they did Aladdin's, definitely not. Yet I liked the changes for Aladdin.
I don't consider myself a purist. If you adapt something, I might like it, I might not. I didn't in that case. And it's not just because it was a classic, I liked the musical adapted from the book for instance.

I guess I really dislike that change because among all the stories of people who are good because they're religious, having one where the main villain is a villain not despite being religious, but because of it, while the good girl is a pagan, was a nice change. If you remove that part the story just lose its main feature as far as I'm concerned, so of course that wasn't a change I liked.

[Secret Fawful]

Well, I respect your opinion on it. Disney may have chickened out on the priest thing, but I still respect them for taking the risks they did take. I can understand why you wouldn't like the changes that were made, and what you say makes sense, especially about the French. By the way, on an unrelated note, are you French?

[Avistew]

Yes, I am
And I appreciate your point of view too. I don't think one of us is wrong and the other is right, when it's about liking or disliking things there is no right or wrong choice anyways.
If I see the movie again I'll keep your comments in mind and try to watch it as its own thing.