Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 12:14:51 GMT
I have a seven year old son. We watch a lot of animated films...
I noticed they all have the same theme.
A) protagonist is different than his/her family or peer.
B) protagonist meets someone who understands them
C) family and or peers finally accept protagonist for what they are
Examples:
The Book of Life. Bullfighter doesn't want to kill bulls. He wants to be a musician.
Coco, kid loves music, family hates musicians.
How to Train Your Dragon. Kid realizes he can't kill dragons like his dad and he's not accepted into the end.
Ferdinandll is gentle and doesn't want to hurt people, but his family and peers are bulls.
Emoji Movie. Meh doesn't want to be that emotion, he wants to express himself, but his family and peers say he has to be meh.
Moana. Girl wants to go out to sea, family says it's too dangerous and they are land people.
Frozen. Girl is different and has to conceal who she is. Finally accepted at the end.
It's like, we get it. It's an allegory. Teaching kids if you're different than your family or peers it's okay. Be yourself.
But Jesus, can we get something fresh? Lion King was the antethesis of this message. You may stray away from home, but eventually you'll take your place where you belong.
More kids do fit in than don't. What about the kids who aren't dorks, outcasts, gay, transgender, whatever... What about a film for normals who do fit in but have other problems to solve?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 10, 2018 12:41:19 GMT
"Focus groups, marketing specialists, and power point presentations all agree that it's what audiences want." - Some suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 10, 2018 15:20:50 GMT
To be fair, kids are a repetitive finite market yes? 9yr olds today are 13yrs old in less than 5yrs. They can copy-paste because each target audience is new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Jun 10, 2018 19:01:43 GMT
Too scared to mess with the formula for fear of losing money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 10, 2018 19:22:33 GMT
A) protagonist is different than his/her family or peer. B) protagonist meets someone who understands them C) family and or peers finally accept protagonist for what they are But Jesus, can we get something fresh? Lion King was the antethesis of this message. You may stray away from home, but eventually you'll take your place where you belong. Well the Lion King does have a similar kind of theme just more subtle in those days. The lion cub is orphaned, becomes an outcast, meets others who understand him. His multicultural upbringing is what keeps him alive. Not having a father around wasn't a problem after all.
Then at the end family and peers finally accept protagonist for what they are. You have Elton John doing the music--no accident. It has propaganda elements just much more subtle.
The Little Mermaid--she wants to leave home and become human--in the end she gets her wish. Her father does what she wants. Very different from the Hans Christian Anderson original.
Usually in the story there is some message along the lines that natural strength (especially male strength) is bad, traditional society is bad, outside influence is good.
100 years ago it was the opposite message. Natural strength is good, traditional society is good, outside influence can be dangerous.
|
|
|
|
Post by dirtypillows on Jun 10, 2018 19:37:56 GMT
Movies stopped being fresh and interesting in the mid 80s. The early-mid 70s were a vital, vibrant, super exciting time for movies, then "Star Wars" came along (and I am not knocking SW. It was a fun movie.), the people in charge hit upon a money-making phenomenon, things started to change, and the route of a slow slide towards bland mediocrity began. It's like a drug. Like the other poster said, it's what people want. The audiences have been turned into trained rats. It's sad and depressing.
I've worked in public school classrooms with young children and I have seen many of these newer Disney movies, and they are painfully repetitious. It's enough to make you pull your hair out.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 10, 2018 19:55:23 GMT
I really miss the period when Disney was experimenting, like from The Emperor's New Groove to Atlantis: The Lost Empire and Treasure Planet and Dinosaur then LILO&Stitch. It was different for a change.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 12:33:46 GMT
They should make a love action Heavy Metal remake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 12:53:53 GMT
They should make a love action Heavy Metal remake. A porno version of Heavy Metal? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 18:11:19 GMT
They should make a love action Heavy Metal remake. A porno version of Heavy Metal? no, make it classy. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 11, 2018 18:15:31 GMT
A porno version of Heavy Metal? no, make it classy. Porno is the class I like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 18:17:42 GMT
Porno is the class I like. porno isnt classy |
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Jun 11, 2018 18:31:13 GMT
Like the other poster said, it's what people want. The audiences have been turned into trained rats. It's sad and depressing. Nonsense. Nobody in the 70s said they wanted less variety in entertainment. The fact is that Hollywood since its inception had been dominated by big-financially strong companies that sought to control Western film production, consciously or not.
They accomplished this even though they had to fight Edison since they were violating his patents. Hollywood was already dominating England by 1930 due to friends in government. Efforts to help indigenous English film production by imposing restrictions on Hollywood imports failed because Hollywood used "quota quickies" to dodge the rules.
In the 30s various film people (Pickford, Fairbanks, Disney, Selznick, Korda, Welles) joined forces to form SIMPP because they didnt like the creative control by the big studios--and soon after there was an anti-trust case involving "blockbooking."
In the 60s Hollywood was losing audiences to independent film--AIP, Hammer, Toho, and others. Hollywood then channeled big money into B movie content. They made lots of money but that didnt mean people no longer wanted variety. There was no variety. What production company could beat the Hollywood distribution system? All the independent companies went out of business thanks to the big corporations.
If people wanted less variety, or they actually demanded the Kardashians, then logically, Clinton should be president because the media companies and Hollywood endorsed her. But the public (or more specifically-the public that made up Hollywood's traditional audience for decades) did not side with them. If they didnt side with Hollywood on that, how can we say people are brainwashed and want less variety and poorly made films? Hollywood press said last year was the worst box office for Hollywood since 1992, and also the worst Oscars telecast in ratings.
Hollywood is not a supply and demand, consumer driven business. If it were, then Weinstein would not be able to blacklist a Judd or Sorvino merely because they wouldnt sleep with him-and he would not be able to get all his "competition" to honor the same blacklist.
Hollywood is like some wealthy prince who buys up all the music stores in town-preventing anyone but himself and his friends from getting access to sound equipment.
He then insists on people hearing his bad singing, those with better voices have to be content singing on a street corner. Doesnt matter how popular their voices are, the prince has money and doesn't give a shit about profits when it comes to giving his voice the biggest loudspeaker.
That is Hollywood today.
|
|
