Can Narnia Save Disney?
With the impending departure of Michael Eisner as CEO of Disney, will the film division find new vitality? Roy Disney certainly made replacing Eisner a centerpeice of his "Save Disney" campaign.
I knew that C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" series of books were being made into a series of movies similar to the "Lord of the Rings." What I didn't know was that the Disney company was the one producing the films.
Most people who know me know that I'm a huge Disney fan. And, Disney has performed inconsistently at the box office over the last few years. Lilo and Stich was terrific. Home on the Range, I'm sorry to say, was not. There has been some live action hits in the teen girl market like the Princess Diaries but nothing like the long string of blockbusters in the 80's and early 90's that ended with "The Lion King." The only guaranteed hits in the Disney lineup now seem to be those that also carry the Pixar name.
But what better to bring Disney back as the king of fantasy than a live action retelling of the Narnia tales?
"The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is still a year away but here's a featurette on the special effects in the Narnia films done by the same creature studio as the Rings series.
Apple.com
posted by Greg Mills @ 2:26 PM
2 comments
links to this post
2 Comments:
Maybe Disney is trying to get on the good side of conservative America, what do you think?
I don't think Disney ever on the bad side of conservative America. The Southern Baptist Convention got upset when Disney extended health benefits to the partners of gay employees. Some religious groups tried to throw fuel on that fire by associating films like "Priest and "Pulp Fiction" with the Disney brand. Both of those campaigns were ill-guided.
A) Homosexual groups came to Disney early on in their effort to get benefits for their partners. Disney sent them away insisting that they could not be out front on that issue because they were a "family" company. Disney execs told them they would do it when at least half of the motion picture industry was already doing so. So when the majority of other motion picture studios had already extended the benefits then the gay groups came back to Disney and Disney honored their commitment. For some reason the SBC decided to make Disney the poster child for the homosexual agenda? I don't get it, they were far from leading the charge on that one.
B) Disney acquired Mirimax because the small studio was racking up Oscars and Disney wanted a piece of that action. Their commitment with the Wienstiens was that Disney would distribute any picture Mirimax put out as long as it got an "R" rating or better. Case in point, Mirimax wanted to release a controversial movie called "Kids" and Disney blocked it because it got an "NC-17" rating. The film's producers had to form a completely seperate company to get the film released. Even the "R" rated pictures like Pulp Fiction were never associated with the Disney brand name until religious groups forced the issue. Disney has tried very hard to separate its family friendly "Disney" brand from the other non-kid-friendly films put out under the "Mirimax" and "Touchstone" brands.
Don't even get me started on those rumored subliminal messages in the animated pictures!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home