Walt Disney Productions Presents Robin Hood (1973)

Disney’s Animated Robin Hood

During Walt Disney’s lifetime, he proved that audiences would sit through a feature-length cartoon with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937).  Before that time, animation comprised only short cartoons and was never viewed as a serious cinematic genre.  Disney, working as an independent producer with total creative control, set the standard for animated feature films. While cartoons existed before Disney, he managed to colonize animation by making it his own. The result was that animation became synonymous with Disney.  While it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the fact that Disney was an auteur as producer, it is widely accepted that he was one.

Animation that came after Snow White essentially was a reaction to what Disney had produced. (Wells 45) Other animation studios like Warner Brothers and the Fleisher’s noted the potential of animation and attempted to distinguish themselves from Disney in their style and content, but Disney remained king.  Throughout his life and after, Disney studios continued producing quality animation.  Walt Disney enabled this ability when he established an assembly-line process for the creation of the animated features which created a level of visual quality in its finished form that stood apart from the competition and was highly recognizable.  The creative process began with adapting an existing story or creating a new one.   In the earlier years, Walt himself would act out the characters and key sequences.

Walt was involved to some degree with each of the animated films up until his death.  The amount of time that he dedicated to each film varied and eventually lessened as he became distracted by other parts of the business (Solomon).  The company struggled with creative decisions following Disney’s death, many of his veteran animators were retiring and it seemed that Disney animation was going to die.  By the time Robin Hood (1973) was released, it was obvious that there was the critical decline in the quality of Disney feature animation.  No longer was there Walt’s final approval for the start or end of any animated feature.  Robin Hood is an example of the creative problems that the company faced as it went through this period of leadership transition as they attempted to live up to the expectations of the “Disney” brand.

As the years passed Walt Disney grew busier with all the different facets of the company and less involved with the day to day operations of the studio, specifically, the animation department. According to Ollie Johnston, one of Walt’s original “Nine Old Men,” Pinocchio (1940) was the last films that he was heavily involved with (Solomon).  Disney did, however, seem to put the wheels of creativity in motion which allowed the studio to continue producing popular animated films.  Even with the limited involvement, no story idea or adaptation went forward without his approval.

The Disney method that enabled the animation studio to produce hit after hit, seemed to continue almost flawlessly after Disney’s death.  Audiences still came to see the films and each did more business at the box office than the previous film (until The Black Cauldron in 1985, when the audiences stayed away).  Following Disney’s death, the studio went through several transitional phases attempting to maintain the Disney style of feature animation production.  The pinnacle of this struggle occurred with the 1973 production of Robin Hood.

Robin Hood was Walt Disney Productions 21st animated feature. The film was a talking animal version of the Robin Hood legend with a fox portraying the rogue of Sherwood Forest.  The Disney studios had previously released a well received live action version, twenty years earlier, but that is where the connection with Walt and this film ended.  The film featured a strange mixture of country-western music and characters thrown against a setting of medieval England.  Some characters, like Robin Hood, played by Brian Bedford, spoke with an English accent while others like the Sheriff of Nottingham and the Balladeer speak with southern accents.  This mish-mash of characterizations was only one problem that Robin Hood suffered.

The film was not popular with critics at the time of its release.  Time Magazine said:
Even at its best, Robin Hood is only mildly diverting. There is not a single moment of the hilarity or deep, eerie fear that the Disney people used to be able to conjure up, or of the sort of visual invention that made the early features so memorable. Robin Hood's basic problem is that it is rather too pretty and good natured. The animation matches the generally pasteurized quality of the film…

By reading the reviews of critics at the time, it is apparent the film failed to evoke the Disney “magic” that had come to be expected.  The magic that critics sought was a coherent storyline [the critics were appalled by Disney’s Alice in Wonderland (1951) for the same reason] and characters that people cared about. (Maltin 263)  Furthermore, the film also lacks Robin Hood aspiring for anything greater than stealing from the riches of Prince John and giving them to the poor who have been taxed into poverty as well as a small subplot regarding Robin Hood’s love interest in Maid Marion.  This version of the story adds nothing new to the Robin Hood legend, other than telling it with animals instead of humans.

The film also lacks any character arc that was found in previous Disney animated features such as Pinocchio or Cinderella (1950).  Pinocchio learns about the world and that he should listen to his conscience.  Cinderella learns about her hidden potential with the help of her fairy godmother.  There is no such development of characters in the simplistic storyline of Robin Hood.

The lack of a storyline was a major problem for the film. (Koenig)  Past features such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) or Sleeping Beauty (1959) were based on popular fairy tales and had fleshed out storylines which were worked through.  Time and money was dedicated at Walt’s behest to create the best possible product.   Instead of an actual plot, Robin Hood connects several sequences which are mildly related.  While this type of narrative in film can work in some occasions, it is not the case with Robin Hood.  The sequences have been described as “fairly bland and uninspired.”  The film lacks a clear story with a beginning, climax and ending. (Jacobson)

Leonard Maltin, Disney animation historian writes, “The biggest problem with Robin Hood was in its story development – or lack of it.”  It was described as a “loud mouthed vaudeville show.” Maltin also stated, “There’s something wrong when Robin Hood is the dullest character in the film. (Maltin 264)  The film struggles to hang on to visual elements that made previous animated features great, such as fluid motions and bright colors.  But with minimal musical numbers, which were prominent in many of the earlier animated features, it fails to elicit any emotional response from the audience. Paul Wells has noted that  causing emotional audience responses to the films is a key element to Disney narratives in animation.

Even with these flaws, it did not keep audiences away. They came in record numbers to see the film during its holiday premiere.  That said, aside from the box office success of the film upon its initial release, the film does not rank among the most popular of the classic Disney features such as Pinocchio and Cinderella, even if was created by some of the same animators. (Jacobsen)
When Robin Hood went into production, the animation studio still operated with the involvement of four of Walt’s original “Nine Old Men” including the director Wolfgang Reitherman.  It is possible that their older influence may account for the slow pacing in the film.  At the same time, there was a new generation of animators being trained by these originators of Disney animation.  Among the new blood was Don Bluth, who was being groomed to lead the animation department. Bluth later left the studio after the production wrapped on Robin Hood with a dozen other new animators to create his own films that he felt were closer to the classic Disney style which he felt the company had fallen away from doing.  Robin Hood features many of the industrial struggles which the studio was facing during this transition period which among other things reflects the financial struggles that the studio was facing in the ‘70s.  The studio had not had any box office success in years.  Their live action films were anything but blockbusters. Due to these factors, Robin Hood was allotted a lower budget which is likely what forced the simplicity of the feature.

The simplified storyline can be attributed to the fact that Disney animation had continued to use the same process for story creation for decades.  When Disney began toying with an idea to turn a fairy tale for fable into a feature length film, the studio would let the development department begin exploring all the possibilities for a story.  In the early years, this process would take months and sometimes years.  The general events of the film would be designed and only then would dialogue be created to fill in the rest of the story.  This decades old procedure for story creation of animated features became so ingrained as part of the system that by the late 1960s and early 1970s, the studio had only one “official” screenwriter, Larry Clemmons.  He wrote all of the dialogue for The Jungle Book, The Aristocats and Robin Hood.  Since Robin Hood was produced on a small budget, it seems likely that less time was spent by Clemmons or anyone else in the story development department fleshing out the story and characters to any greater depth than what was presented.

The supporting characters in the film include Phil Harris, essentially reprising the same role for a third time as Little John.  In The Aristocats, Harris played O’Malley the cat, who was very similar to Baloo in The Jungle Book except he was a cat.  In Robin Hood, his performance is identical to that of Baloo, including the fact that he once again is playing the role of a bear that even bares striking resemblance to an earlier character.  The difference being that the character of Little John is not nearly as memorable as Baloo, nor does the character add anything to the film.  The recycled bear character comes across as yet another attempt to simplify the production process for this film.  The other supporting cast in the film is made up by Peter Ustinov as Prince John, a character that while being one-dimensional, comes across as the most entertaining character in the film.  The character Sir Hiss is also extremely reminiscent of Kaa the snake from The Jungle Book.

Robin Hood’s character design utilized animal characters instead of human characters.  Audiences were just as entertained by the animals, but critically, this was viewed as a short-cut method taken by the animators since stylized humanoid animals were inherently easier to animate than human figures (Koenig).  It was the first animated feature to not feature a single human being.  Granted, Bambi (1941) does not actually show any humans, but their voices and presence are heard.  The next “all animal” animated feature from Disney would be 1994’s The Lion King.

The film took other short-cuts by recycling animation from both Snow White and the feature released just before Robin Hood, The Aristocats (1970).  It is widely recognized that the sequence at the end of the film featuring Maid Marion dancing in the forest was traced directly from Snow White dancing with the seven dwarfs.  This was another cost-cutting method to save time in animating that particular sequence.  An explanation given for the recycled animation was that the new animators who were being trained during that period were learning from the men who created the art. (Solomon)
The animation quality of Robin Hood has at times been compared to that of television animation in that it has the following qualities: repetitive animation, such as the charging rhinoceros guards which uses the same animation cells through several frames, simple and similar backgrounds since the action all takes place in or around the king’s castles.  The film was allotted a smaller budget than the typical animated feature due to the financial slump that the company was facing during that time.  Earlier Disney innovations like the multi-plane camera were no longer used because of the time and expense to create animation via that method.  There really were no innovations in this production.  Gene Siskel’s review of the film at its release cites the film for having a “lack of background details and principal character movement.”  He also compares the animation to that of Saturday morning cartoons. (Siskel)  Current reviews of the film on DVD are no better.  Colin Jacobson of the online DVD Magazine says, “Every expense was spared for Robin Hood.” (Jacobson)

Also worth noting, is that the film features less music than in any of the previous animated features. Once considered a hallmark of the Disney’s animated features, this film has only three songs, the least amount of music until The Black Cauldron was released in 1985, which features no music.  This lack of music also reflects how  the studio was scaling back its production methods during the 1970s.

Following Walt’s death, the studio released The Aristocats, which was the first film to go into full production without the omniscient presence of Walt.  That film reflected the classic Disney “style” in its animation, though it is not one of the more memorable films produced by Disney.  When it was followed with Robin Hood, Disney seemed to be struggling to regain that “style.”  It was also considered by critics and animation fans to be a test as to whether Disney could continue animating without Walt.  By the time The Fox and the Hound was released in 1981, Disney was trying to reinvent itself while still holding on to what was successful in the past.  Robin Hood, as it turned out, fell right in the middle of this major transition period for the animation department. The director, “Woolie” Reitherman was one of Walt’s original animators.  He worked with the Disney leadership as they tried to do what Walt would have done.  Unfortunately, this project comes off as an exercise in Disney mediocrity, which is not something Walt would have approved of.

While this film can be pointed out as having major flaws compared to other animated films in the Disney canon, it does continue to have a built-in audience.  There are and will continue to be connoisseurs of anything Disney studios puts on film, including this movie.  The studio has just released a new, special-edition DVD of Robin Hood, which as of this writing is ranked in Amazon.com’s top 100 selling DVDs.  The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that regardless of the inferiority of the film within the Disney canon of animation, audiences will still buy it because it has the “Disney” name on it and they believe in the Disney brand.  That said, it will continue to reflect the turbulent era for Disney following Walt Disney’s death and ending with the start of Michael Eisner’s leadership of the company.

Works Cited and Consulted:
Robin Hood. Dir. Wolfgang Reitherman. Perf. Phil Harris and Peter Ustinov. Walt Disney Productions, 1973.  DVD. Walt Disney Video, 2000.
Cawley, John. “The Animated Films of Don Bluth.” 13 November 2006. http://www.cataroo.com/DBrhood.html
Jacobson, Colin. “Robin Hood: Most Wanted Edition” DVD Movie Guide. 28 November 2006.  10 December 2006. http://www.dvdmg.com/robinhoodmostwanted.shtml
Koenig, David. Mouse Under Glass: Secrets of Disney Animation and Theme Parks. Bonaventure Press. 2001.
Maltin, Leonard. Of Mice and Magic. Plume, New York. 1987.
Maltin, Leonard. The Disney Films. 3rd Edition. Hyperion, New York. 1995.
Siskel, Gene. Chicago Tribune. 25 December 1973. p. B7.
Solomon, Charles.  “An Afternoon with Ollie Johnston, Frank Thomas and Pinocchio.” Animation World Magazine. Issue 3.4 July 1998. 9 December 2006.  http://www.awn.com/mag/issue3.4/3.4pages/3.4solomon.html
Wells, Paul. Animation and America. Rutgers University Press, New Jersey. 2002.
Wells, Paul. Understanding Animation. Routlege, New York 1998.
Time Magazine. “Quick Cuts.” 3 December 1973. 13 November 2006.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908239,00.html

The Watcher In The Woods (1980)

The Watcher in the Woods – Disney Does Horror

 The family’s role in the horror film dates back to the creation of the first horror movies.  Many even cite the family connection in the Frankenstein films.  Robin Wood’s structuralist borrowing of the psychoanalytic-political theory of repression, outlined in An Introduction to the American Horror Film will provide us with our interpretive framework.  Of particular significance to Wood is horror’s portrayal of the family and the family’s position in maintaining dominant social and cultural norms, namely those of patriarchy and capitalism.  In the 1970s there was an explosion of horror films revolving around the family and just about every studio attempted one. As Wood points out, from 1959’s Psycho on, Hollywood has produced horror films that are “both American and familial.”  Watcher in the Wood continues that tradition. 

By the end of the 1970s and early 80s, Walt Disney Productions struggled as it attempted to maintain its image of wholesome family entertainment.  It still attempted to maintain its present with the world wide movie going audience.  During this same period films like Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were breaking box office records and these were movies that Disney could  have made but didn’t because it of its blind allegiance to making only G-rated fare.  When the new decade of the 1980s arrived, Ron Miller, Walt Disney’s son-in-law had taken over the leadership reins of the company.  He realized that Disney needed to venture in more mature filmmaking, but it was a fine line that the company was willing to walk as it developed PG films.  In order to produce big-budget films, the studio did two co-productions with Paramount Studios, Popeye (1980) and Dragonslayer (1980).  Neither of these films was very successful and Disney once again decided to venture into film production solo.  One way that the company saw the possibility to bring in some box office revenue was to take advantage of the developing audience for the newest brand of horror films like Friday the 13^th and Halloween.  Instead of attempting a slasher film, Disney instead followed the trend of family horror films but with The Watcher in the Woods (1981).

In focusing on the family in horror, it is appropriate to discuss the contested nature of “family”. The family is by no means a universal, static, or tangible grouping; it exists as a complex network of relationships. It is the social institution entrusted with the reproductive process – reproduction of the species, along with reproduction of cultural, social and psychic norms. Though “the family” is frequently conceptualized as a universal, fixed unit (i.e. the nuclear family), this is an essentially ideological construction, conflicting with the reality of its diverse and changing nature. It is probably more correct to talk of “families”, as “the family” in a unitary sense doesn’t really exist. However, family is a useful concept for the way in which it informs and provides meaning to discursive and cultural formations. The inherently Western nature of the family in this sense, and its function within capitalist superstructures requires us to view developments and themes in the horror genre with a degree of cultural specificity. (Woods)

This film depicts an American family moving to England into an old mansion with Bette Davis as the house caretaker.  The somewhat confusing plot revolves around the fact that Davis’s daughter disappeared in the surrounding woods one night and has never been seen again.  Depending on the source, it has been said that Disney had issues with how much horror and frights could be depicted in a film produced under their name.  This film deals with the occult and supernatural, all themes that had never been attempted by the studio before this time.  They also struggled with how to produce a family friendly film about a family dealing with terrifying events befalling them.  With a conclusion that is as unfair as it is nonsensical, The Watcher in the Woods is its own worst enemy: far better as a curiosity during a time when Disney was offering the worst mainstream movies the world has ever known than as a horror film the whole family can enjoy.

The film reflects the problem of Disney trying out horror that is still Disney-like.  Elements of terror go back as far as their version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.  When the evil stepmother transforms herself into a hag, audiences were said to have wet their pants.  Two years after The Watcher in the Woods, Disney took a second stab at the genre with Something Wicked This Way Comes, based on the Ray Bradbury book.  This film also suffered a similar fate in that it was re-edited and had new material shot for it after the production had wrapped.  The film did poorly box office, not only in its abbreviated initial release but also the re-cut version that attempted to clarify the ending.  Internationally, the film did not appear to make much of a profit, if any.

The Watcher in the Woods was initially released in the United States on April 17, 1980.  After being pulled from theaters and re-edited, it was re-released on October 7, 1981 to coincide with the Halloween season.  In the USA the film grossed only $5 million.  The film was released internationally, specifically in France on April 7, 1982 and in Japan on September 11, 1982.  Other countries which distributed the film were Poland, Italy, Spain, West Germany and Finland.  Reactions internationally were equally poor, though actual box office figures were not obtainable.  

The film was directed by an English director, John Hough who had worked with Disney on two prior mystery/sci-fi/whatever films; Escape from Witch Mountain and its sequel, Return to Witch Mountain.  One can easily find similarities between this atmospheric ghost tale with Australia’s Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) which was released in the USA in 1979 just as this film went into production.  Director John Hough, no doubt found some inspiration in Peter Weir’s film which carries a similar “thriller” theme.  He also brought his real life experiences as an Englishman to conveying just how frightening the English countryside can be.

Some questions that stand to be asked are why Disney chose a British director for the film but ultimately took him off and replaced him with an American studio guy from the TV department to complete the final version of the film?  Did they want the film to appeal to international audiences or did they want someone that could bring the feeling of The Haunting of Hill House to the movie.  (Which, incidentally, is the same house used for this production.)  If they were trying to compete with storylines about haunted houses, then the film could be considered a rip off of The Shining or The Amityville Horror. At the start of the film, it is hinted that the house may be haunted.  As the father says what self respecting old English house would be without [a ghost]. There is no ghost, but there is Bette Davis, who is quite frightening in her appearance at this late stage in her film career.  The girls then joke about a witch living somewhere in the woods – another blatant attempt to tell the audience what to be afraid of. 

We ultimately find out that the house and the woods surrounding it are not the culprit of the horror but it is instead some other supernatural power terrorizing the family.  The original cut of the film was to feature a climatic moment where the “Watcher” returns and takes the female blonde lead back to his spaceship where she finds the missing girl and somehow brings her back home.  This ending was never completed and the ending was dramatically altered to one where the “Watcher” is never presented on screen.
            As we address the idea of Disney’s family horror film, it is worthwhile noting Ann Douglas’s definition of the concept:

The genre of “family horror” records the strange forms and transformations into which the contemporary middle-class family falls: its subject is the splitting of the atom of the nuclear family. This fictional family is twice nuclear. It consists of the now-classic small nucleus of parents and one or two children. It represents the first American families parented by young adults who were themselves born just before and after the official inauguration of the nuclear age at Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and who are consciously bringing children into an atomic world. In these thrillers, parental characters, like many of the authors who create them, are baby-boomers, creatures of the sixties, dramatized and imagined as they begin families in the seventies and eighties: in other words they are protagonists of pressing, intricate and culturally telling contradictions.  (Douglas)

Watcher features the middle class American family leaving the comforts of the United States to live life in jolly ole’ England.  The father of the family leaves early on in the film for a business trip, leaving his wife and two daughters with Ms. Aylwood.  The parents are basically useless and at a loss for how to manage their situation.  It is only via the children that a breakthrough is made and the lost daughter of Ms. Aylwood is recovered.  There is the stereotypical “innocent” little girl, Ellie and the “pretty” older blonde sister, Jan.  Jan’s blonde hair is important because Ms. Aylwood’s daughter was also a blonde and she both reminds Ms. Aylwood of her daughter and also helps Jan intercede in finding Karen. The Americans are the foreigners and are the ones who discover the other foreigner who has been terrorizing the village.

Wood describes two types of horror films; reactionary and apocalyptic.  Watcher uses an unseen monster throughout the film.  This ambiguous form of monster falls right into her definition of the “return of the repressed.”  The missing girl in the film originally disappears while participating in a séance with other teenagers.  Teenagers are traditionally portrayed as repressing sexual tendencies and are punished for it.  The missing girl, Karen, is dressed in white was blind folded with a white handkerchief and stood in the middle of the séance circle when she was taken.  This concept in itself touches on themes of sadomasochism. The monster kidnapping her can be interpreted through Woods’ definition of the monster as a punishment for the possibility of sexual expression on Karen’s part, though this is never something shown or discussed in the film text.  Jan also has what appears to be a love interest, a young man she meets after moving to England.  There is not a hint of sexuality between them.  No kissing, hugging or romantic moments. 

            Tony Williams has also written extensively about the American horror film.  He describes these films as embodying "inevitable psychological tensions of an authoritarian family situation, in which people are molded into certain roles."  The adults in this film are portrayed as particularly inept thus leaving it up to the children to take control of the situation.  The children are not the cause of the horror such as in films like The Exorcist or The Omen, but they are the ones victimized most by the monster such as in a film like Poltergeist.

            In making their first horror film, Disney was able to maintain some of their reputation for a family film.  There is no sex, foul language or significant acts of violence.  Disney was and remains the studio to produce films for the family audience.  However, the conventions of the typical American horror film are not compatible with Disney dominant conventions both in 1980 and even present day.  Yes, this film does have a happy ending but the overall theme of the film is a dark one.  The occult, séances, and extraterrestrial alien creatures are not stock characters for a Disney film.  Disney finally realized that if they wanted to maintain the integrity of the Disney brand but still be able to compete at the box office, a differently named production company would need to be created.  Once Touchstone Pictures came on the scene with the release of Splash (1984), they finally could make a competitive and financially successful film.  Interestingly, there were no future attempts at horror in the ways that were attempted with both Watcher in the Woods and Something Wicked This Way Comes.

WORKS CITED

Digital Cinema. “The Mystery, Behind the Mystery.” http://www.geocities.com/ditcin4/watchermystery.html. 28 March 28, 2007.

Douglas, Ann, “The Dream of the Wise Child: Freud's 'Family Romance Revisited in Contemporary Narratives of Horror,” Prospect, 9 (1984), p. 293.

Hollis, Richard and Brian Sibley. The Disney Studio Story. Crown, New York. 1988.

Maltin, Leonard. The Disney Films.  3^rd Edition. Hyperion, New York. 1995. p. 273, 317.

Naha , Ed. "Something Wicked This Way Comes." Twilight Zone Magazine June 1983.

http://www.geocities.com/moviemagazinearchive/SomethingWicked.html 28 March 2007.

The Watcher in the Woods Review

http://www.geocities.com/ditcin4/watcherinthewoods.html

Wood, Robin (1979) “An Introduction to the American Horror Film”. The American Nightmare. Toronto: Festival of Festivals

Disney's Creativity Dilemma

Disney released it's slate of films planned for the next few years, most of which were already announced at different times. There is a pattern that is quite disturbing, which was brought to my attention by my movie buddy, Will McKinley. Disney is banking itself on franchises and remakes. Aside from some new storylines out of Pixar and Disney animation, there is not a whole lot of original ahead. I understand wanting to capitalize on the $4 billion spent on Marvel and the other $4 billion for Lucasfilm, however, how about continuing a legacy. 

Sequels are not new to the Disney machine, remember that it's the studio that gave us four Herbie films.  Even during Walt Disney's era, there was The Absent Minded Professor (1961) and Son of Flubber (1963).  However, with the exception of two Davy Crockett feature releases (which were just packaged versions of the one hour serial from the Walt Disney Presents television show), there were no other live action or animated sequels made under his reign.  I am not about to start the "What would Walt do?" argument, because that is inconsequential.  What I am concerned over is the future of the studio.

Disney's first FULL live action film was not even produced until 1950's Treasure Island. Live actions films then dominated the studio until the millenium, when this mining of the animated properties began. Direct-to-Video animated sequels saw out Eisner's era at the studios. Thankfully, that trend ran it's course and several sequels that were planned never saw the light of day, (Pinocchio II and Aristocats II, anyone?).  Now it seems we have gone the opposite direction. The studio has gone back to mining the properties, but now is producing live-action films based off the animated classics. This year we had Cinderella, which fared well at the box office, assuring a few more in the future. The Jungle Book, which Disney already has done in live action form, back in 1994 is getting another go, this one will be a musical version but with mostly new songs and CGI animals, I presume. Beauty and the Beast just starting filming this month for a 2017 release. Rumors of Pinocchio and Snow White are also rampant.

There are several original films in the current slate. Many of have modest budgets and can lean on the tent pole positioning of the Marvel and Pixar films for a buffer. If they are successful, they too perhaps, will be considered for future sequels.

Oh, and another word about Disney property mining, we have Tomorrowland, The Movie! opening for Memorial Day weekend. This should be a success, though maybe not a blockbuster. We can likely look forward to more Disney attraction-turned-films in the future, including another attempt at a Haunted Mansion movie coming sometime probably in 2018, according to Screenrant.  Let's see if we get a Matterhorn movie, which itself was inspired by a live action film, Third Man on the Mountain (1959).

Disney has always been about innovation and mass appeal entertainment. For their sake, I hope they do not end up back in the 70s rut of mere regurgitation and derivative content.

Below is the list announced fully, today:
Avengers: Age of Ultron – 5/1/15
Tomorrowland – 5/22/15
Inside Out – 6/19/15
Ant-Man – 7/17/15
Bridge of Spies – 10/16/15
The Good Dinosaur – 11/25/15
Star Wars: The Force Awakens – 12/18/15
The Finest Hours – 1/29/16
Zootopia – 3/4/16
The Jungle Book – 4/15/16
Captain America: Civil War – 5/6/16
Alice Through the Looking Glass – 5/27/16
Finding Dory – 6/17/16
The BFG – 7/1/16
Pete’s Dragon – 8/12/16
Doctor Strange – 11/4/16
Moana – 11/23/16
Star Wars Anthology: Rogue One – 12/16/16
Beauty and the Beast – 3/17/17
Ghost in the Shell – 4/14/17
Guardians of the Galaxy 2 – 5/5/17
Star Wars: Episode VIII – 5/26/17
Toy Story 4 – 6/16/17
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales – 7/7/17
Thor: Ragnarok – 11/3/17
Untitled Pixar Animation – 11/22/17
Untitled Disney Animation – 3/9/18
Avengers: Infinity War Part I – 5/4/18
Untitled Pixar Animation – 6/15/18
Black Panther – 7/6/18
Captain Marvel – 11/2/18
Untitled Disney Animation – 11/21/18
Avengers: Infinity War Part II – 5/3/19
Inhumans – 7/12/19

Thanks to  Box Office Mojo for the listings.

Turner Classic Movies and Disney: Unite!

You wonder what took so long! When the Disney/MGM Studios (now Disney's Hollywood Studios) opened, the center piece attraction was the "The Great Movie Ride" which highlights some of the most famous film moments in silver screen history.  Disney had negotiated rights to use many of MGM's greatest cinematic moments, including the Wizard of Oz and Singing in the Rain.  The MGM library ended up in the possession of Turner Broadcasting in 1986 and Turner Classic Movies went on the air in 1994 and now its quite full circle.

  The Great Movie Ride is set to receive a TCM-curated refresh of the pre-show and the finale.  The finale will feature an all-new montage of classic movie moments, which has been updated over years but will now get a glossy major makeover, expecially with more access to classic movies. The TCM-curated refresh is set to launch by spring.    The part that is equally exciting to me is that TCM will launch Treasures from the Disney Vault, a recurring on-air showcase.  This is similar to the Vault Disney program that ran on The Disney Channel in the early 2000s.  These programs have been sorely missed and many are not even available currently anywhere. Programming will include such live-action Disney features as Treasure Island (1950), Darby O'Gill and the Little People (1959) and Pollyanna (1960); animated films like The Three Caballeros (1944) and The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad (1949); classic nature documentaries, including The Living Desert (1953) and The African Lion (1955); made-for-television classics, such as the Davy Crockett series; special episodes from Walt Disney's Wonderful World of Color; documentaries about the studio, including Walt & El Grupo (2009) and Waking Sleeping Beauty (2010); and animated shorts, such as 1932's Oscar®-winning "Flowers and Trees."
 
It is likely that some of the other animated features could be presented at a later time.  And unlike the current Disney Channel format, they would not be broken up with spot breaks and announcements.  These could be given all new introductions by Robert Osborne and Leonard Maltin, just think of it!


Treasures from the Disney Vault is scheduled to premiere on TCM Sunday, Dec. 21 at 8 p.m. 

The big opening night of the showcase will include the holiday and winter animated shorts "Santa's Workshop," "On Ice" and "Chip An' Dale," followed by The Disneyland Story. The night will also include The Reluctant Dragon, Disney's 1941 film that combined a live-action tour of the Walt Disney Studios facility with animated shorts; Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier (1955), a compilation of the first three episodes of the iconic series starring Fess Parker; the Oscar®-winning documentary The Vanishing Prairie (1954), part of Disney's True Life Adventure series; the rarely seen Third Man on the Mountain (1959), an Alpine tale starring Michael Rennie and James MacArthur; and Perilous Assignment (1959), a documentary about the making of Third Man on the Mountain. Did you know that the Matterhorn ride at Disneyland was inspired by Third Man on the Mountain?

"Saving Mr. Banks"

It's been an exciting couple of years for me. First they make a big-screen bio pic of one of my cinema heroes: Alfred Hitchcock. (I'll pretend The Girl, the less-flattering HBO bio pic, didn't happen) and now Saving Mr. Banks. Of course, Saving Mr. Banks is not really a movie about Walt, it's more of a bio pic of P.L. Travers, the author of Mary Poppins.  It is, however, the first time that Walt Disney has been featured PROMINENTLY in a major motion by an actor.  What's more is that the struggle to get Mary Poppins made, itself, makes for a great story and turned into a wonderful.

The film tells the tale, with use of flashbacks, as to just how personal Mrs. Travers held the characters from Mary Poppins.  We see the relationship between Travers and her doting father who had his own demons to deal with.  Disney struggled for 18 years to convince Travers to adapt the books into a film. Like many, she saw Disney as a guy that makes cartoons for children. She was deathly afraid of the characters being trivialized, animated and candy coated. This is another film where we know the ultimate conclusion, she allowed Disney to have the rights to the character, but it was not without a lot of charm from Walt, the Sherman Brothers (song composers), Don DaGradi (screenwriter) and likely many other people from the Disney camp. The process to convince Travers to allow Disney the rights to make the film is the framework for the film.

I was packed into a theater with hard-core Disney fans who signed up for the Disney Parks Blog meet-up, so this was an audience that really wanted to see this film done right. I think I can speak on behalf of the majority and say the film was "practically perfect in every way." Hanks as Walt Disney did the man justice. He was not a caricature, but actually portrayed Disney at his essence. He still looked like Tom Hanks, but there was just enough make up and hair styling to allow you to forget that it was him. Emma Thompson was wonderful and I was able to completely believe she was Mrs. Travers.

Of the many things I love about Disney - the institution, is Disneyland. I recall last summer when all they were filming a couple of key sequences inside the park. I was unable to get over there that day, by my Disney social media friends provided plenty of coverage on Twitter and Instagram. The moment I was most looking forward to seeing was when Travers was brought to the park for a personal tour by Walt Disney, himself.  The park has evolved a lot since 1963, when that meeting actually occurred. Other than the addition to a few elements at the entry to the park, there was little done as far as set dressing to date the park back to the 60s. Instead, the art designers focused on the clothing worn by the extras. They were really the only thing you could see in focus, as the rest of the back was merely a background.

The film, Mary Poppins was Walt Disney at his finest. We've seen through time that Mary Poppins was the pinnacle of live action films while Walt was alive. The film was released in 1964 and Walt passed away just two years later in 1966.  By all acclaims, Travers remained critical of the film, even after it's release. She continued to hold tightly onto the rights. It was only after she passed away that a stage musical version of Mary Poppins could even be considered.

The Lone Ranger - not a review

Today, The Lone Ranger opens. Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer star in Disney's new film and attempt at a 3rd Johnny Depp franchise for the studio, right behind Pirates of the Carribean and Alice in Wonderland, which has a sequel in the works. I have not seen the movie yet, although I think I want to. My kids, ages 6 and 8 want to see it. This could partially be due the fact that they have been inundated with ads on Disney XD about the movie.

It's no secret, the film is getting really bad reviews. This is not a complete surprise, merely due to the fact that there were production problems. Production on the film was shut down for several months after it had began in order for the studio to rework the budget. It also has had it's opening date moved three times, which sometimes is another red flag. Although, to be honest, it got moved to 4th of July weekend due to another studio pushing their big film release back, thus freeing up this big holiday weekend.

Reviews of the film seem to be universal in their critique at the films length and plot. Again, I haven't seen the movie yet, so I cannot comment on the plot. It does seem that perhaps they tried to hard to force a franchise and by using the Pirates template should have made it a slam dunk.  I am dreading seeing the comparisons that will be made this weekend to the release of John Carter last year and it's devastating box office numbers.  Sadder yet, the box office will be dominated by Universal's Despicable Me 2, an animated film from a rival studio.

I will get around to seeing the movie soon and I will give my own thoughts shortly. Meanwhile, I am still trying to find time for that other box office failure, The Hangover 3, which I am still looking forward to see, for real. I love those characters.

Iron Man 3 - A Stark Contrast

Another superhero sequel has arrived. I must confess that I am not huge fan of the genre, but there is something very endearing to the character of Tony Stark, created on screen by Robert Downey Jr. Perhaps it's his dripping sarcasm and snark. Perhaps, it's the fact that he feels like a real person, arrogant, yet human. Iron Man 3 has the legs to stand on it's one, while subtly fitting into the the Avengers film canon.

Things that stood out to me in this film is amount of times that Tony Stark was left to his own human devices. Often it was his own fault due to his constant tinkering with more advanced versions of the Iron Man suit. In this film, he is up to Mark 42. Between sharing the suit, waiting for the suit to show up and hoping that when it does arrive, that it will work, Stark is left to use his own physical strength and mental prowess to get through things. Stark is Iron Man, there would be no suit without Stark, but Stark would have little purpose in the world without it.

The villain in Iron Man 3 was also a fresh take. Without resulting to spoilers, modern issues with Middle East centric terrorism was dealt with in a way that was realistic yet carefully separated from any reality that we currently live within.  The concept of a terrorist leader, depicted by Ben Kingsley, who demands respect from all those he comes in contact with, is right out Al Queda. However, we soon learn that things are not as they appear. Kingsley plays "The Mandarin" who takes over all broadcasts networks whenever he feels like it to carry out his terrorist threats. Much in the same way that 24 hour news access brings into our living room everything going on in the world at any given time, the bad as well as the good. It reminds us that everything is not what it appears, media is often filtered and celebrity is subjective.

Don Cheadle returns as War Machine, who has now been adopted by the US Military and renamed the Iron Patriot. Iron Patriot plays a small supporting role, but when it all comes down to it, Stark is the creator of his own destiny and it's by his own creations that things are made whole again, at least for this Marvel installment.

I am not one who is overly excited for the Thor sequel coming along. I still have not seen the first one and was introduced to his character only in The Avengers. The next Avengers sequel is slated for 2015. Another Captain America is due April 2014. I have enjoyed what I have seen so far. Disney seems to be a great fit the Marvel Universe as all of these films have a bit of the magic and heart one expects from the Mouse House. I accept that my statement is controversial.