sonoftom
New Member
I am not economically viable.
@sonoftom
Posts: 20
Likes: 6
|
Post by sonoftom on Oct 3, 2017 10:08:40 GMT
Does Disney only do kids movies? Has disney pictures ever made a movie aimed towards adults, a violent movie or a horror movie???
Just curious to know.
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Oct 3, 2017 15:45:17 GMT
Does Disney only do kids movies? Has disney pictures ever made a movie aimed towards adults, a violent movie or a horror movie???
Just curious to know. They do make films geared more for teens and adults under different studio names.
|
|
|
Post by RiP, IMDb on Oct 3, 2017 16:38:54 GMT
Touchstone Pictures
Silver Creek Pictures, Inc.
Hollywood Pictures (1990–2007; closed).
Miramax Films (1993–2010; sold).
Dimension Films (1993–2005; sold).
Caravan Pictures (1993–1999; closed).
ImageMovers Digital (2009–2011; closed).
DreamWorks Pictures (2011–2016).
American Empirical Pictures (1997–2005).
Jerry Bruckheimer Films (1993–2014).
Cinergi Pictures (1993–1998; closed).
Beacon Pictures (1996–2007).
Studio Ghibli (North America; 1998–2014).
Vanguard Animation (2002).
POW! Entertainment (2007–2014).
Spyglass Entertainment (1998–2008).
Blinding Edge Pictures (1998–2005).
Walden Media (2002–2008).
Mandeville Films (1996–present).
Mayhem Pictures (2002–present).
Lucamar Productions (2012–present).
Plan B Entertainment (2016–present).
Panay Films.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 5, 2017 1:10:52 GMT
Not at all. Even some of their kids movies are pretty messed up by today's standards.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 5, 2017 7:55:23 GMT
In Pirates of the Caribbean 2 or 3, they had a couple of pirates looking up through floor boards at Kiera Knightley who was not wearing underwear.
I was surprised by that one, since it was with the Walt Disney name. They used to do that sort of thing with Touchstone Pictures precisely because they didn't want to confuse the brand. Now they don't care. Especially as there are no more Disney relatives on the board I don't think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2017 11:14:53 GMT
Disney makes family movies not kids movies.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Oct 5, 2017 16:47:53 GMT
I was surprised by that one, since it was with the Walt Disney name. They used to do that sort of thing with Touchstone Pictures precisely because they didn't want to confuse the brand. Now they don't care. Especially as there are no more Disney relatives on the board I don't think.Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (spoiler: I am), but I think that's kinda sad. The Disney Corporation has disrespected the family under whose name they operate more and more as the years go by. As for the OP's question, Disney made one of the best movies-featuring-kids-that-are-not-"kids' movies" that I know: Something Wicked This Way Comes, from Ray Bradbury's book. A wonderful movie, from a wonderful book.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 5, 2017 19:10:21 GMT
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (spoiler: I am), but I think that's kinda sad. The Disney Corporation has disrespected the family under whose name they operate more and more as the years go by. I remember when Michael Eisner became CEO and he said in an interview how lucky it was that the company was in hands that were devoted to good and not evil because the power of the company was awesome. Then shortly thereafter he also said they were only making animated films because it was the company legacy and he sounded completely unenthusiastic. Then the reputation of its lawyers for trivial law suits began to circulate--they forced a school which had paid an artist to put Disney characters on their building to remove them. Hanna-Barbera sent one of its own artists to replace the characters.
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Oct 6, 2017 19:22:14 GMT
I wouldn't call this family entertainment
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on Oct 6, 2017 19:25:24 GMT
I wouldn't call this family entertainment Donald Duck Meets Donald Trump!
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Oct 6, 2017 20:33:55 GMT
I wouldn't call this family entertainment Did you even watch the short? It's a satire of the Nazis. I'd argue it's hardly objectionable for "family entertainment", but children should be told what it's propagandizing against before watching it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2017 2:45:16 GMT
Disney makes family movies not kids movies. If the family is all under 12. In my opinion, Beauty and the Beast is not for adults. I could name others. I am being slightly facetious. A film like Swiss Family Robinson would probably be called "fun for the whole family!" like the old Disney tagline, but it can't be said that Disney doesn't make kids' movies.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 9, 2017 3:34:41 GMT
Primemovermithrax Pejorative said Then the reputation of its lawyers for trivial law suits began to circulate--they forced a school which had paid an artist to put Disney characters on their building to remove them.
This did not start with Eisner. Disney has always protected its characters from un-authorized use. When my older sister was in high school (way before Eisner's Day) they had to re-do their senior pin which had featured one of the seven dwarfs. What was a mystery was how the Disney Corp had even found out about it. They have gone after many schools, day care centers etc through the years. "Trivial" ? Not to them. It's copy-writed material that must be paid for to use. The "artist" they paid should have known this.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 9, 2017 3:38:08 GMT
The "artist" they paid should have known this. I'd have to see proof of their litigation history prior to the 1984. BTW the final Tex Avery cartoon Bugs Bunny design comes from a Disney Tortoise and the Hare short and WD didnt care.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 9, 2017 3:47:34 GMT
Primemovermithrax PejorativeI'd have to see proof of their litigation history prior to the 1984.
Am sure it's around somewhere if you care enough to look into it. I know it happened because my sister and my parents were actively involved in the snail-mail discussions with Disney, Corp and it was way before 1984. Disney won out and new pins were made for the Seniors to wear. I still have the old Disney one and the replacement. What's really funny is that they had chosen "Dopey" for their pin.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 9, 2017 3:59:06 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 9, 2017 3:59:20 GMT
Am sure it's around somewhere if you care enough to look into it. I know it happened because my sister and my parents were actively involved in the snail-mail discussions with Disney, Corp and it was way before 1984. I did a search-couldnt find anything on Disney copyright cases before the 90s. You will have to give me the year. That sounds different from a school mural since it involves a product that is manufactured and at that time Disney may have licensed their work to a company. Mickey is due to expire in 2023-what excuse will Disney have to extend copyright again?
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 9, 2017 4:08:26 GMT
Primemovermithrax PejorativeIt was never a "court case". It was an exchange of letters basically saying "We know you have these pins. You are not allowed to use our copywrited character drawing on your pins. STOP or we will sue you and we are bigger than you and we will win." So they won with just the threat of suing. The pins were wooden things made by a local company who apparently knew no better ... much like the mural artist you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 9, 2017 4:36:30 GMT
The pins were wooden things made by a local company who apparently knew no better ... much like the mural artist you mentioned. Just give me the year and I will try to track down Disney cases from that era. But I think a mural is not something that can be monetized like pin reproductions can.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 9, 2017 4:46:53 GMT
It seems as simple as : "A copyright keeps your original work—songs, books, articles, art, photographs and more—safe from being used without your consent."
Mural. School pins for the Seniors to wear. No permission ? Company has the right to say "NO". Disney did and it was before 1984, before Eisner.
|
|