gordonl@microsoft.UUCP (Gordon Letwin) (04/16/85)
I recently went to see the new Disney dinosaur flick, "Baby." My friend and I don't have a lot of respect for most Disney flicks, but we're interested in Dinosaurs and in "model animation", so we were hoping that we'd get some enjoyment from the special effects. Unfortunately, it was abysmal. The dinosaurs look like wooden frames inside oilcloth (which they undoubtedly were), their behavior was "Disney animal" behavior, and the plot of the movie was enough to gag a horse. We walked out after about 30 minutes. I think the word "Disney" - all the negative things that conjures up - would suffice for a "pico-review". Picture the bad guys - really bad, they kick puppys for fun. The side-kick bad guy is a fruit, of course - moral depravity knows no bounds. The "last straw" for us was watching the bad guys shoot down a dinosaur - one of the "mom, pop, and baby" super-cutsie family grouping. In its death throes the dying and surviving dinosaur go through a heart-rending (or is it "puke- rending") scene involving batting eyelashes, rubbing necks, swearing undying love, etc., etc. Then the surviving dinosaur turns on the bad guys and signs, "I'll get you for this!". My gawd... If you like dinosaurs, model animation, or special effects, skip this movie. gordon letwin microsoft
waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (04/19/85)
> I recently went to see the new Disney dinosaur flick, "Baby." My > friend and I don't have a lot of respect for most Disney flicks, but . . . . . > I think the word "Disney" - all the negative things that conjures up - My Gawd!!! Weren't you ever a child! While I agree with some of your comments concerning your perception of Walt Disney movies from an adult point of view, you have to remember what Walt Disney movies are -- wholesome family entertainment. As such, the good and bad characters and plot episodes are often exagerated, much the same as "Classic" Disney movies such as Absent Minded Professor, Snow White, etc. If the Disney people wanted "Baby" to be taken as anything other than family movie (read heavily oriented towards children), they would have released the movie under the "Touchstone" label rather than the "Disney" label. Too bad a G rating kills a movie at the box office, otherwise they wouldn't have felt they needed to creep into the "PG" category (creep is exactly what they did). There are very few "family" movies produced these days. While I don't have children myself, and at this stage in my life prefer to see "adult contempory movies" (how's that for a broad categoy), I am glad to see a movie such as "Baby" produced as an alternative for children to such movies as "E.T.", "Gremlins", and "Star Wars." I appreciate the dilemma faced by many of my friends with children who have trouble finding movies that won't either scare them or fill them with a lot of questions they don't particularly feel like answering that day. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy many different types of movies, and have no major qualms with the rating system or the types of movies being produced (law of supply and demand, don'tca know). However, some of my fondest childhood memories are of Walt Disney movies of the 1960's. I hope the Walt Disney genre of film never disappears. -- Walt Tucker Tektronix, Inc.
cm@unc.UUCP (Chuck Mosher) (04/21/85)
In article <tekecs.5258> waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) writes: > >There are very few "family" movies produced these days. While I don't have >children myself, and at this stage in my life prefer to see "adult contempory >movies" (how's that for a broad categoy), I am glad to see a movie such >as "Baby" produced as an alternative for children to such movies as >"E.T.", "Gremlins", and "Star Wars." I appreciate the dilemma faced by >many of my friends with children who have trouble finding movies that >won't either scare them or fill them with a lot of questions they don't >particularly feel like answering that day. > > -- Walt Tucker > Tektronix, Inc. The problem is that "Baby" *does* scare them and fill them with questions like "why are they riddling the daddy dinosaur with bullets? why are they riddling each other with bullets? why are they blowing up an entire town? why does everybody look so happy riddling each other with bullets?". The whole movie is nothing but a war. I was *FURIOUS* because I had called the theater beforehand and asked how violent the movie was. The manager assured me that it was fairly tame as such things go - "there is a little gunplay". A LITTLE????????!!!!!!!!!! Maybe I'm out of touch but I expect that when I take my 2 and 3 year-olds to a G movie I expect not to have to hold them and cover their eyes during the movie! It was even upsetting to my 11yr old although he denied it. We probably should have left the theater, but we had played the movie up to them so that it would have been really upsetting to them to leave in the middle. Thinking back on it we should have left. It's hard to always make the right choice! In sum, do NOT take you kids to "Baby" unless you also let them watch "A Team" on TV, in which case they won't be learning anything new. It really floors me to see what movies, TV, etc. are teaching our kids! Take an active role against this brainwashing! (I guess that is ultimately what really has me upset - I try to monitor what they are exposed to and then I get tricked into a situation like the above.) Chuck Mosher UNC Computer Science Chapel Hill, NC !decvax!mcnc!unc!cm
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/23/85)
In article <5258@tekecs.UUCP> waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) writes: >My Gawd!!! Weren't you ever a child! While I agree with some of your >comments concerning your perception of Walt Disney movies from an adult >point of view, you have to remember what Walt Disney movies are -- wholesome >family entertainment. As such, the good and bad characters and plot >episodes are often exagerated, much the same as "Classic" Disney movies >such as Absent Minded Professor, Snow White, etc. Disney movies really have four periods, as far as I can tell. In the early period, Disney made nothing but animation. There's hardly a one of these, feature length or short, that isn't well worth seeing. In the late Forties, Disney started making live action films, as well. By and large, these were quality action-adventure films eminently suitable for the entire family. A couple were mediocre, most were OK, and a few were great. There were also a few moderately funny comedies, more appealing to children than adults, but that was OK. In the mid-Sixties, Disney began to get old and eventually died. In this period and through the Seventies, Disney's company made a bunch of increasingly feeble comedy-adventure movies, with an occasional cheesy action-adventure film thrown in and a few Godawful musicals. (Join in with me on the chorus of "Detroit" from that undying classic, "The Happiest Millionaire", and who can forget that immortal standard, "Let's Put it Over With Grover", a Grover Cleveland election song from "The One, the Only, Genuine, Original Family Band".) One or two of these films are watchable, the rest are trash. Finally, in the Eighties, the company started groping towards a new style of filmmaking. Groping is the word, as they came up with "Tron", "Something Wicked This Way Comes", and some other less than spectacular successes. (Lost in the shuffle was "Tex", an excellent film and a true pointer towards the way Disney should be heading.) While these films were failures, they were at least interesting failures. "Baby" is a dull failure, a throwback to the worst style of the Seventies with a few touchs to smut it up to a PG rating. Many children are undiscriminating, but they deserve better from the self-proclaimed champion of children's films, which so astutely passed on "E.T." and "Star Wars". >If the Disney people >wanted "Baby" to be taken as anything other than family movie (read heavily >oriented towards children), they would have released the movie under the >"Touchstone" label rather than the "Disney" label. They did. "Baby" is a Touchstone film, not Disney. Apparently everyone in the world knows that Disney is the backer of Touchstone films, though, since the Disney crowd was out in force when I went to see it. >There are very few "family" movies produced these days. ... >I am glad to see a movie such >as "Baby" produced as an alternative for children to such movies as >"E.T.", "Gremlins", and "Star Wars." I appreciate the dilemma faced by >many of my friends with children who have trouble finding movies that >won't either scare them or fill them with a lot of questions they don't >particularly feel like answering that day. The dearth of children's films is indeed disturbing. I find it incredible that trash like the Smurf movie and the Carebears movie can rake in the bucks because no one else is interested in providing quality children's films. One of the great mysteries of American films (for me, at least) is how we forget how to make enjoyable films for children without sex or bloody violence. I personally would find "Baby" far too likely to raise undesirable questions ("Daddy, what are those pills the woman is taking?") and far too violent to serve as a good children's film. I find the very thought that "Gremlins" was a children's film quite disturbing. >However, some of my fondest >childhood memories are of Walt Disney movies of the 1960's. I hope the >Walt Disney genre of film never disappears. If you mean the good old stuff like "The Absent Minded Professor" and "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" (with Sean Connery as the vapid young hero; who'd have thought it?) and "Toby Tyler" and "The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh", I sort of agree, but rather than wish they'd never disappear, I wish they'd come back. If you mean "One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing" and "Herby Goes to Monte Carlo" and "The Apple Dumpling Gang", I only wish they'd go away. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (04/24/85)
> >However, some of my fondest > >childhood memories are of Walt Disney movies of the 1960's. I hope the > >Walt Disney genre of film never disappears. > > If you mean the good old stuff like "The Absent Minded Professor" and > "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" (with Sean Connery as the vapid > young hero; who'd have thought it?) and "Toby Tyler" and "The Scarecrow > of Romney Marsh", I sort of agree, but rather than wish they'd never disappear, > I wish they'd come back. If you mean "One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing" and > "Herby Goes to Monte Carlo" and "The Apple Dumpling Gang", I only wish they'd > go away. > -- > Peter Reiher > reiher@ucla-cs.arpa > {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher What about "The Gnomemobile" and "The Compute wore Tennis Shoes" and the original "Love Bug" and "The Parent Trap" and ...
waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (04/24/85)
(sorry, sent it out last time before I was finished editing) > >However, some of my fondest > >childhood memories are of Walt Disney movies of the 1960's. I hope the > >Walt Disney genre of film never disappears. > > If you mean the good old stuff like "The Absent Minded Professor" and > "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" (with Sean Connery as the vapid > young hero; who'd have thought it?) and "Toby Tyler" and "The Scarecrow > of Romney Marsh", I sort of agree, but rather than wish they'd never disappear, > I wish they'd come back. What about "The Gnomemobile" and "The Compute wore Tennis Shoes" and the original "Love Bug" and "The Parent Trap" and "The Horse in the Gray Flannel Suit" and "That Darn Cat" and ... -- Walt Tucker Tektronix, Inc.
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (04/24/85)
>> I recently went to see the new Disney dinosaur flick, "Baby." My >> friend and I don't have a lot of respect for most Disney flicks, but >. . . . . >> I think the word "Disney" - all the negative things that conjures up - > >My Gawd!!! Weren't you ever a child! While I agree with some of your >comments concerning your perception of Walt Disney movies from an adult >point of view, you have to remember what Walt Disney movies are -- wholesome >family entertainment. Walt, I could be wrong, but I think the original poster was objecting not to the family orientation of Disney movies, but simply to poor movie making. There are many like myself who *love* the Disney classics, but who also feel that the Disney organization has not been the same since the old man died, and has produced few movies even a child could respect in recent years. >As such, the good and bad characters and plot >episodes are often exagerated, much the same as "Classic" Disney movies >such as Absent Minded Professor, Snow White, etc. If the Disney people >wanted "Baby" to be taken as anything other than family movie (read heavily >oriented towards children), they would have released the movie under the >"Touchstone" label rather than the "Disney" label. Too bad a G rating kills >a movie at the box office, otherwise they wouldn't have felt they needed to >creep into the "PG" category (creep is exactly what they did). > >There are very few "family" movies produced these days. While I don't have >children myself, and at this stage in my life prefer to see "adult contempory >movies" (how's that for a broad categoy), I am glad to see a movie such >as "Baby" produced as an alternative for children to such movies as >"E.T.", "Gremlins", and "Star Wars." I appreciate the dilemma faced by >many of my friends with children who have trouble finding movies that >won't either scare them or fill them with a lot of questions they don't >particularly feel like answering that day. Was ET a scary movie? As I recall it, it was not. I always figured it got a PG rating because of one or two instances of slightly adult language. By contrast, I know a number of people who were quite frightened by the witch in SNOW WHITE when they saw it as children. I think one can applaud the intent of Disney Studios to make family-oriented films, and still criticize them for doing such a rotten job of it. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
devine@asgb.UUCP (Robert J. Devine) (04/24/85)
The movie critic for the Denver Post (no plug intended) called this movie 'Bambi-saurus'. Bob Devine
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (04/25/85)
>> There are very few "family" movies produced these days. ... I am glad >> to see a movie such as "Baby" produced as an alternative for children >> to such movies as "E.T.", "Gremlins", and "Star Wars." I appreciate >> the dilemma faced by many of my friends with children who have trouble >> finding ... > > The dearth of children's films is indeed disturbing. I find it > incredible that trash like the Smurf movie and the Carebears movie can > rake in the bucks because no one else is interested in providing > quality children's films. As a parent with very young kids (3 1/2 and 2) I am looking ahead to the day when they are old enough to sit through a 2 hour movie and suspect I'll be buying a VCR and renting things like Mary Poppins, The Swiss Family Robinson, The Absent-minded Professor, and Debbie Does Dallas. (Just kidding on the last ... wanted to see if you were paying attention.) And I, too, was horrified to see so many parents with their real little kids in tow to see real "kiddie-nightmare-producers" such as Temple of Doom and Gremlins. (RE. The Carebears Movie, my house rule: no movies or TV shows based on toys will be viewed! The idea!) -- Fred Avolio {decvax,seismo}!decuac!avolio 301/731-4100 x4227
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (04/26/85)
In article <5272@tekecs.UUCP> waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) writes: > >What about "The Gnomemobile" and "The Compute wore Tennis Shoes" and the >original "Love Bug" and "The Parent Trap" and ... "The Parent Trap" is from 1961. "The Gnomemobile" was from 1967 and "The Love Bug" from 1968. Disney died in 67, so all three of these films were essentially under his influence. (He must at least have approved the script for "The Love Bug".) Things started getting really bad after his death, though even these films are more acceptable than really good. I'm not especially fond, myself, of Kurt Russell's Disney films of the 70s, so I don't exactly count "The Computer Wore Tennis Shoes" as a classic. -- Peter Reiher reiher@ucla-cs.arpa {...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
goldman@umn-cs.UUCP (Matthew D. Goldman ) (04/29/85)
In article <493@decuac.UUCP> avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) writes: >...(RE. The Carebears Movie, my house rule: >no movies or TV shows based on toys will be viewed! The idea!) >-- >Fred Avolio {decvax,seismo}!decuac!avolio 301/731-4100 x4227 lets get rid of the shows which are based on toys! -- ------- Matthew Goldman Computer Espionage Department University of Minnesota ...ihnp4{!stolaf}!umn-cs!goldman Home is where you take your hat off... Banzai!