h a l f b a k e r yChewable.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
The trend in children's movies these days is to add in some humorous parts for the adults as well. Disney Pictures has succeeded in creating blockbuster after blockbuster by simply ensuring that, in the midst of the comical explosions and excessively silly sidekicks, there is some office humor and political
satire that the adults will laugh at, too. In short, they create films that *everyone* will go to: Children, parents, grandparents, and everyone in between.
But the result is a film which, while enjoyable overall, doesn't completely enthrall any of the groups that it targets. Children will find the political humor and parts which parody old movies over their heads. Adults, while impressed with some of the scenes which are mature beyond their years, will be annoyed by the incessant Saturday-morning cartoon type humor that pervades half of the film.
Each group will come away wishing that Disney had created this film entirely for kids, or entirely for adults.
So why don't they? I think that after Disney creates its main release for the theaters, they should then go back and create two more versions: one for kids, where the adult humor and subtler sections are edited out and more silly explosions and fighting scenes added in, and one for adults, where the extra silliness is deleted and replaced by subtler, deeper humor that adults will appreciate.
There will now be 3 versions available in video stores: Disney originals, DiSney® KiDz™, and Disney® Grown-Upz™.
Cinderella
http://www-2.cs.cmu...ok/grimmtmp/016.txt
Definitely not the Disney version [Klaatu, Mar 22 2005]
[link]
|
| |
There already are services that will selectively edit out sections of films inappropriate for different age groups, by sex, violence and other categories. This is a more general solution to your problem. |
|
| |
But the joy of Aladdin, say, is just how enjoyable it is for adults who get the in jokes, as well as for children who don't. I see no point in making that movie address only one audience segment, so fishbone. |
|
| |
Disney is a bad example because they do a pretty good job of appealing to a wide audience; but I wouldn’t mind seeing this implemented for the more recent Star Wars movies, which are stuck in the painful limbo of trying to appeal to kids but also satisfying some very demanding adult fans (who were kids when the started being fans). |
|
| |
(A reluctant +. The better solution is to use writers and directors who know how to entertain children and adults simultaneously.) |
|
| |
I would buy the original version of Aladdin, too. It was great. But I just saw Mulan last night, and I'm sorry, but way too much of it was written for 6-year-olds. (Probably to counteract the historical/cultural aspects of the film, which have been statistically shown to be boring to children.) Ditto for The Lion King. It's about nature; most children don't have the patience for nature studies, so they had to over-kidify it, etc. etc. |
|
| |
Once the conceptualization of the movie has been done and the original been released, I think it would be easy and profitable for Disney to rewrite/re-animate the movie all for adults or all for children. The animation is all done by computers these days, after all. |
|
| |
[phundug], a movie made entirely for kids (the way you've described it, without the "mature" jokes) would be torture for the many thankless parents who must escort their children to said movies and/or sit with them at home to watch them. Perhaps this bend in the parent-child continuum is necessary and not just an annoyance.
We already have movies for just adults and there are in fact movies that no adult could sit through unless stoned or sleeping. But dissecting Disney in this way is cruel to the chaperons who have no choice. |
|
| |
Where the hell have you been? Disney has been making films for all ages since the 40s. Warner Bros. has been doing it since the 30s. Not until the late 70s were cartoons considered exclusively for children. None of the original animated shows' content was written or aimed at children in any way. |
|
| |
You need to do some research. This idea is based on faulty logic, poor understanding of the entertainment industry and a complete ignorance of history. |
|
| |
Where's that Goddamned Ballistic Fishbone when I need it? |
|
| |
[ato_de]: The early Disney animations (Lady and the Tramp, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, etc.), while originally for all ages, are effectively "for adults" today, because today's kids have different values from kids of the 50's. Today's typical hyperactive kids don't appreciate the classical music and subtler tones of animation the way it was back then. So, it is possible that a today-original version of The Lion King may someday be looked back upon as being "for adults". Even a kids-only version may someday become something that only adults will take interest in. But until then, I'd like a version that I, an adult with no small children, can watch and enjoy from end to end. |
|
| |
What differentiated the "classics" from today's all-ages movies is that the classics were created in one unified form. |
|
| |
But today's all-ages movies ("Mulan" and "Star Wars" and "The Lion King" and the others) are like two different movies interleaved into one. I can look at each scene and immediately tell if it was meant "for children" or "for adults". I bet that, behind the studio walls, they had a lot more children's material, and a lot more adults' material, that was removed in the final edit when the CEO decided that it should be 67% kid footage and 33% adult footage. I'd like the option of seeing the other kid material, or adult material, put back. |
|
| |
phundug, I think you are getting into a classic "one man's treasure" debate. I thought The Lion King was the best Disney movie since The Jungle book and it is one of my top ten movies. My six year old's favorite movie is Nightmare Before Christmass, My three year old's favorite movie is Aristocats. We own all of the Disney movies (including a boot leg copy of Song of the South.) My children have watched them all. I think the best movies are those that combine the elements needed to entertain everyone. A true classic appeals to an incredibly wide range of people spanning an equally wide age range, otherwise it will be qualified as a "cult" classic. |
|
| |
It ain't Disney, but Shrek (and Shrek2) are two films that are constructed so as to be great films for adults, but also appeal to kids. I took my four and two year old to Shrek 2. They didn't get many of the jokes, and they certainly didn't spot the film references, but they though it was great. You don't need three versions of a film. |
|
| |
I disagree. Shrek was okay, but the eddie murphy character was exaggerated and way over the top, and I found him plain annoying. Kidz would find it funny. |
|
| |
Think what a masterpiece a Shrek - only for adults - would have been! |
|
| |
Disagree phundug, Shrek was for adults more than it was for kids. I thought the Donkey was very funny (best thing Eddie Murhpies done for ages), but anyway most of the jokes were not kids jokes. |
|
| |
/the eddie murphy character was exaggerated and way over the top/ |
|
| |
K_sra has got the closest so far, kid's movies have to be made to appeal to adults because adults have to go to see them. Films for kids that don't appeal to adults are called Teen Movies. |
|
| |
As subtly indicated in the last paragraph, this idea would work best in DVD format. All scenes could be included, and the DVD pre-programmed to play the adult's/kid's/cinema ("theater") version according to the chosen menu option. |
|
| |
A (+) from me, and may I respectfully suggest that those who have taken umbrage at the idea of different versions being shown at the cinema go back and read the idea again. The idea is a neat way of appealing to a wider audience without dumbing-down or alienating large segments, and I can see it as the next logical step from including out-takes during the title sequence. |
|
| |
The Cinderella version I would like to see <link> |
|
| |