Black Cauldron Theories

Mark P Vitale

unread,

Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98

to

A friend of mine who has a PAL vcr (yes he is a videophille, says he
likes the higher resolution better than NTSC--whatever) just returned
from a European business trip and while over there he happened to purchase
a copy of the Black Cauldron. So I finally got to see the film (or should
I say re-see it as I did watch it in 1985 but remembered very little).

After this viewing I began thinking about all the rumors andnegative
perceptions that this film has on this newsgroup and thoughtr I'd
contribute my two sense. I have no inside industry knowledge, nor
and I intending to attack anyone's opinion--this is just what I've
deduced regarding this film's situation. I would love to hear
everybody's opinions on what they think happened, as well as what
they think of what I htink.

Onward and upward...

Spoiler Space for those that need it

Okay, there are a couple of issues I want to discuess. First, I guess,
I;ll address the "flop" issue. Charles Soloman in his "History of
Animation" and in the book "Disney Animation:from Mickey Mouse to Beauty
and the Beast" both wrote that the film cost about $25 million to
make (I have no knowledge of marketing costs). I have read this in a
few other sources (which I can't remember) but this seems to be what
opinion and hindsight beleive that movie cost (I have read one report
which I cannot remember so I cannot site that said the film cost
$40 million to make. This may have been incorrect or it may have been
a time-adjusted figure. At any rate, I'm going with the 25 because I
have had more sources say that). Soloman continues on to say the
film MADE almost $25 million at the box office "hardly a flop but hardly
the [runaway success] that Disney was looking for." So th film lost
hardly any money from production, and it set a record. That record was
MATCHED by the Great Mouse Detective and not broken until 1988 with Oliver
and Co. Secondly, reviews I've read have been mostly positive. I have
on tape the Siskel and Ebert episode where they reviewed the BC (don't
ask me why). Yes Ebert loved it without a doubt (his review from the
paper is on the web at the Chicago Sun Times archive site) and Siskel
and some reservations. They were split on the thumbs issues, but Siskel
raised some weak points about the story but didn't hate it. I also have
the review from my local paper and one from a New York Paper. Both didn't
just recommend the film, they spent the entire article singing it's
praises saying how Disney was back and back to the drawing board and
other cute metaphors. Roy Disney is on record saying how he loves the
film (of course, now he is on the record saying he knew there was a
problem all along--this is probably the more true statement of the two
but he IS on record saying he loved it). and how it was a great film
for Disney. The recent perception that it was critically and publically
panned is, at best, much exaggerated with time. Many people don't
remember it because disney of 15 years agoo was not the cultural icon
it is today. In fact, Disney had almost ceased to exist entirely and
they certainly weren't the merchandising machine they are today. Would
any of the recent films have done as well as they did (Anastasia included)
without the massive marketing campaigns that went along with them to
raise awareness and CREATE a need in the public to see these films? I'm
not saying they're not good, just that they had help at the outset.
Granted, BC was getting hyped as early as 1981 in Newsweek and such (well
mentioned at least) but the take-over attempt and management change kind
of eclipsed all that. BC had it's chances serverly cut right there.

The "PG" Rating. This further hurt BC because it's percieved in America
that cartoons are for kids. Especially back them when anything Disney
was considered taboo fro anyone over 10. But why did this film get a PG?
Yes it's dark (as in not many bright colors), yes it has a foreboding
and dark tone--but it is no more intense or scary than Bambi, Sleeping
Beauty, Pinnochio, etc. There are two main sequences I think that caused
the rating. 1) When Taren is trying to save Hen-Wen from the Gwyathains
(can't pronounce it much less spell them but they look cool) he is
smashed to the ground. He gets up and he is bleeding. Not much, and
certainly not a big deal today, but back then to show a HUMAN bleeding
was a big no-no (even today I guess. Batman Mask of the Phantasm got
a PG and Bats bled--but it's only humans. Secret of Nimh was extremely
violent, rats get stabbed o screen, rats bleed profusely in multiple
sequences, rats die on screen twice, and one character swears--yet it
recieved a G in 1981--why? No humans came to harm). The second
sequence is the ending where the Horned King gets his skin blown off
him. VERY un-Disney like and probably scary for little ones. Still,
when compared to films like the Secret of Nimh (which should have
gotten a PG) BC is probably in the middle somewhere. Definately not
Care Bares the movie, but not Star Wars either (in terms of intensity).

The film itself. The animation is stunning, although time has taken its
toll with the film. The print I saw was dirty and grainy. Furthermore
the P&S, although well done, hurst the film also. I have some pictures
of the full widescreen and when compared to the 1:33:1 picture the
visual impact is severely lessened. If you're at Disney-MGM in Florida,
take the animation studio tour and in the last film where they show the
anthology of Disney movies, BC has two shots--a Hen-Wen/Gywathaint and
Horned King with the Cauldron Flaming. It's good to see these in
widescreen on a big screen.

The story is not bad--actually it's pretty good. What is a little weak
are the characters. Besides Taren and Gurgi, none really have a
personality or a goal. The worse one is (unfortunately) the Horned
King and this is probably the film's major flaw. He never does anything
until the end and then he still doesn't do anything. Compare this to
Maleficient who also didn't do much until the end and then she showed
us why she was such a meanie (in IMHO one of the best film climaxes
ever). Horned King, although suberbly vocied by John Hurt never gets
an opportunity to flex his muscles. He looks cool, but villians often
make films (especially Disney films) and here the Black Cauldron lacks.

Furthermore, the climax is not well executed. A climax can make or
break a film (I Like Batman and Robin primarily because of the SFX and
the cool climax). I'm speaking from a public point of view, not an
artistic one. The Cauldron climax is extremly drawn out and somewhat
uneventful. Yes, I know that's where the cut sequence is--and I htink
I know where it should be. Right after the dead warriors pop out
of the cauldron they go for one of the thugs. Then it cuts to Elonwy
saying "Oh how Horrid" and we never see this particular thug again.
This cut hurts, because the dead warriors never get a chance to do
anyuthing. They look and move extremely well, but never get to flex
their muscles. Showing them killing someone would a)justify the PG
and b) improve their evil demeanor.

Still, seeds of the current Disney can be seen in this film. Taren
talks about his aspirations early in the film and (almost) breaks
into song. The boy/girl romance is present and a cute sidekick
is also there. Why Gurgi's death falls emotionally flat is somewhat
of a mystery. I think he's too much of a coward at the beginning and
it seems contrived (a bit). The story is not the best ever, but it
certainly is nowhere near the bottem.

Which is how I feel about the entire film. I think the Black Cauldron
is like a breath of fresh air for Disney. It is so different than
the formulamatic (good nonetheless) films that are currently being
produced that I think a subsequent release to theaters would attarct
people. It is a sword and fantasy adventure, much like Dark Crystal
and Willow, and is unique among the Disney Classics. I woudn't
mind some reworking done to the film--if done right. No songs, they
won't help much. Give the Horned King something nasty and plot forwarding
to do. Tighten up the climax. And please please please--RESTORE THIS
FILM AND REMASTER ITS SOUND.

Will the Black Cauldron ever see light of day in the US? Probably. The
Aristocats and Lady and the Tramp both got video releases 1-1 1/2 years
ahead of the us in the UK. I think the Black Cauldron will come back
and , with a little marketing and (possibly) tweaking it can be the
successful film that Disney originally intended it to be.

All that said, I really enjoyed it. I hope others will have the
opportunity to do so as well.

Mark

andrew osmond

unread,

Mar 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/18/98

to

In respose to Mark's very interesting post:

I'm a British animation fan with a long-term interest in Cauldon,
largely because until recently it was the only major Disney toon feature
I'd never seen. I include a personal review below. On the question of
reviewers: I once went to the BFI (British Film Institute) library and
pulled down the mainstream papers' response to Black Cauldron. The vast
majority were lukewarm-to-negative - then again, the same was true of
many of the animated features of that time. (Oliver and Company had a
fairly rough ride in some Brit quarters, as did The Little Mermaid.) My
impression was that the reviewers weren't so much anti-Disney as anti-
Tolkien-style-quest fantasies, a point I bring up in my review below.

The review in question was written for the magazine Animato! 39 and if
Pat Duquette is reading, I hope he'll forgive me reproducing it here.
Three points: it's a critique of the recent British video, not the
theatrical release; it is, of course, utterly subjective and not meant
to offend; and any factual howlers are entirely my own fault (apologies
in advance).

For the record, I really wanted to like this film.

SPOILER WARNINGS

THE BLACK CAULDRON
Walt Disney Classics.
77 minutes.
Directed by Ted Berman and Richard Rich.
Voices: Grant Bardsley, Susan Sheridan, Freddie Jones, Nigel Hawthorne,
John Hurt.

If it wasn't for Thief and the Cobbler (another fantasy epic,
ironically), Cauldron would be a strong contender for the title of Black
Hole of Animation. The last big feature on Disney's toon backlog to go
to video, the pic was shrouded for years in corporate denial; like
Heaven's Gate or Showgirls, Cauldron was something that seemingly never
happened. Even Disney's TV montages restricted its appearances to
momentary glimpses (admittedly, this might be because of its lack of
cuteness or song routines). And I've long scoured Disney stores looking
for Taran and Eilonwy doll sets, or a stray cuddly Gurgi.

I've never had much time for 'consensus' Disney history, which
represents Black Cauldon as the nadir of a downward slide from the '40s
onward. I'd sooner watch Fox and the Hound or Rescuers, cheap and flawed
they may be, than charmless, plotless 'classics' like Alice or Sleeping
Beauty. I've even less time for the view that Disney should be censured
for wading into a juvenile, degenerate territory like genre fantasy - a
view which ignores not only Aladdin and Hercules, but also the studio's
live-action Return to Oz, Dragonslayer and Something Wicked - commercial
disasters, yes, but displaying more imagination and story than Lucas and
Spielberg put together. Unfortunately, such films are obsured by the
likes of Conan and Hawk the Slayer, the same way Bakshi kitsch sidelines
superior toon fantasies like TMS' Little Nemo, FAI's Ferngully and
Rankin-Bass' Last Unicorn and Flight of Dragons. Interestingly, the
latter two were animated at the Japanese studio Top Craft, which also
made the seminal Nausicaa... but back to Black Cauldron.

The problem with Disney's film is that it's representative of the lower-
rank, Conan, school of fantasy film-making. It's fantasy-by-numbers, in
execution as well as premise (for examples of the distinction, refer
back to Return to Oz, or perhaps the 'revisionist' novels of Tad
Williams). The tone is set in the opening dialogue, perhaps the limpest
in any Disney as Freddie Jones' Merlin-clone mutters, 'Something
wrong... I feel it in my bones... that black-hearted devil the Horned
King...' Hardly gripping stuff, and the introduction of Grant
Bardsley's youthful hero doesn't help. Taking his cue from Mark Hamill,
Bardsley plays Taran as an incorrigible whiner, but wheras Luke had
three films to develop, Taran ends Cauldron barely more likable than he
was at the outset. On the other hand, he does better than John Hurt's
Horned King, apparantly spawned from Darth Vader and He-Man's Skeletor,
and certainly the most forgettable of the studio's cartoon baddies. The
animators strain to give him presence - unfortunately lost on the small
screen - and miss out on personality entirely. He could almost be a
Scooby Doo villain, an impression heightened by the cheesy score when he
makes his entry.

Indeed, the main disappointment of Black Cauldron is that it resembles
nothing so much as a TV toon. Specifically, it's hard not to see it as
foreshadowing Disney's Gummi Bears, launched a few months later, with
Taran as Calvin, Eilonwy as Calla, Creeper as Toady and so on. And on
that level, Cauldon works fine: it's certainly on a level with Return of
Jafar or Duck Tales: The Movie. But it also has the crudities of
Saturday-morning Disney, with a reliance on unrelated set-pieces (the
castle battle, the witches' cottage) and 'talky' scenes as shoehorned
and redundant as a Tim Rice ballad. The 'adult' content reduces to Taran
bleeding and Hen Wen being threatened with beheading: nasty, but not
exactly groundbreaking.

It's telling that Black Cauldron was Disney's first feature toon sans
songs, yet there's no fortification of narrative: the script swings
between crudely mechanical and desperately flabby (unfunny bits-of-
Creeper business, the pointless Fair Folk). This shallowness is most
obvious in the setting. We're told that the Horned King threatens
humanity, but apart from the adventurers and Dalben (Francis), homo
sapiens' representatives are all baddies. Again, Taran and Dalben's home
is portrayed as a haven of peace, then turns out to be on the edge of
the King's inferno-realm. With worldbuilding this clunky, why bother
being interested? Even lunkheaded pics like Krull or Dragonheart rounded
their sub-Tolkien worlds more.

Okay, credit where it's due. I liked the novelty of the coda in which
Taran sacrifices his dreams to buy back Gurgi's soul. It's
unexceptional, but it manages to lift the film out of the
thud'n'blunder, as well as providing a pseudo-rationale for the
mandatory Disney resurrection. Surprisingly, the best character is the
heroine, Princess Eilonwy, ably voiced by 34-year old Susan Sheridan
(fans of Brit TV may recall her from the SF spoof Hitch-hiker's Guide
to the Galaxy). Breaking Disney's then mould, Eilonwy is introduced as
a proto-Belle, precocious and self-reliant, casually releasing the
imprisoned Taran with the line, 'Well, if you want to come...'
Unfortunately, the script then does nothing interesting with her,
reducing her to the tradiyional damsel-in-distress. There's no effort at
backgound or empathy, a criticism also true of the overgrown chipmunk
Gurgi (John Byner) and the bard Fflewddur Fflam (Nigel Hawthorne,
another Brit TV stalwart). Think Pete Posthelwaite's annoying monk in
Dragonheart and you'll have the level. The fault isn't the characters
(though Fflam has too much screen time) but rather the framework that
prevents them growing beyond cut-outs.

On animation and scoring, it's hard to say anything substantial. The
music consists of standard heroics and irritating 'olde' melodies, while
the backgrounds and character movement are competent and unmemorable in
equal measure. In fairness, Cauldron should ideally be judged in
widescreen: it was made in 70mm and one remembers how its near-
contemporary Nausicaa was diminished on video. Nevertheless, it's a
shame the vaunted Cauldron Born are quite so underwhelming - were they
really sensational in 1985? - while the sub-Bakshi dancing girl is plain
embarrassing. Before appealing to the state of '80s animation, look at
the bear in Fox and the Hound or the clock routine in Basil. Both leave
Cauldron in the dust.

In conclusion: Black Cauldron is no turkey. It is, however, a huge let-
down, and one understands why Diney shunned it for so many years. Not
the least of Disney's big-screen toons - that honour still belongs to
Robin Hood - it's not far off either. As well as denting Disney's
reputation, Cauldron dealt a blow to the fantasy genre and LLoyd
Alexander's source novels particularly. I first read the Chronicles of
Prydain (part-derived from the Welsh Mabinogion) back in my teens. While
hardly innovative, the books were charming and moving, with a sometimes
enchanting cast of characters. This genuine Disney folly raises no fond
memories.

--
andrew osmond

Eddie Bowers

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

Although I agree in general with Pat's review, I must say that I cringed
every time Eilonwy spoke.
It seemed to me to such a made up insincere voice for the character. And
where the heck did her little floating ball go for most of the film?

-Eddie

andrew osmond wrote in message ...

andrew osmond

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

In article <6erill$u...@news.microsoft.com>, Eddie Bowers
<edd...@microsoft.com> writes

>Although I agree in general with Pat's review, I must say that I cringed
>every time Eilonwy spoke.

Sorry, should have been clearer. I wrote the aforementioned review for
Animato! (of which Pat is the esteemed editor) so any errors,
infelicities, howlers etc are my responsibility!

So you didn't like Eilonwy's voice? Maybe I'm just used to Susan
Sheridan (who's familiar in Britain from Hitch-Hikers Guide and numerous
TV commercials). That said, I thank heaven Disney didn't pick Bonnie
Langford...

--
andrew osmond

James Travis

unread,

Mar 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/19/98

to

A WEDNESDAY INSIDE THE BLACK CAULDRON

I often say that Spielberg's Empire of the Sun inspired me to get into
filmmaking, and ten years after that revelatory screening, I'm in Hollywood,
working on films when and where I can, the biggest (but not worst) being
Starship Troopers last fall with the Mini FX unit. But there were several
other films as well that put me where I am today (which isn't saying much, but
there it is), outlaw films like the 1982 re-jiggering of Disney's Fantasia that finally made it to the Austin theater called (no kidding) the Southpark in 1984. And certainly one of the more educational was Disney's lost 1985 film, The Black Cauldron -- just what the hell was 70mm photography and six-track Dolby sound?.

Well, I was fourteen years old, then, and little did I know that it would take
thirteen more years, a billion hours of college film study, several Hollywood
misadventures and a laserdisc dub of Song of the South for me to ever lay
eyes on that crazy Cauldron film again. Well, it happened last Wednesday, and I thought I'd share the experience with a few of you, both as an informative guide to what to expect if you get a PAL copy, and maybe as a warning to not trust your childhood memories with too much veracity.

The PAL dub I got my hands on was not made by - shall we say - the best video
transfer house in LA. It was a copy of a copy, taped in the LP mode of all things, with no leader and several tracking errors. So woe woe woe unto anyone foolish enough to pay serious scratch for this film. There's a web site called
"StarscreamsGhost" or something like that, and she'll make you a copy, but
you'll have to trade her something she wants first (not unlike the avuncular
witches who provide the deus ex machina in the end of the second and third acts
of The Black Cauldron).

Anyway, my thoughts on the quality of her tape......all the scratches and tracking errors and LP dubbing and all that - I really didn't care. The movie could have been upside-down, b&w, and dubbed in Nordic, and I still would have gone ape. Listen, nobody wants anything so much until somebody says you can't have it. And I couldn't see this film for thirteen years. Finally owning the tape - finally watching the movie - FINALLY - it was better than sex. And not unlike some intimate encounters you think are going to be a transcending experience, the tape was a bit of a letdown, finally, and nothing as sweet as the hope that preceded it.

But back to the PAL tape - FIRST OFF, and MOST IMPORTANTLY - I hate to say it, but despite claims to the contrary by UncleRemus at AOL and others, the European release of this movie is cut. I know, I know, you just want to drive a U-Haul straight through the main office of Buena Vista Home Video, but there it is. Its true, its cut and nothing and nobody can do anything about it at this point.

Watching the alterations, my heart dropped to somewhere near Singapore. For me,
the best moments of animation in TBC were during the resurrection of the
CauldronBorn. One after another after another, they sprang up (three quick
clasps in all, if memory and my 1984 Pinocchio tape serves) and they all
leered into the screen in some of the best of Disney Animation's forays into
the realm of the grotesque. In the European release, one jumps
up, and then - SNIP! - we cut right to the Cauldron Born jumping onto a few
soldiers and then - SNIP! - we cut to a reaction shot of Taran et al. watching
in horror as the soldiers go walking away. None of the more gruesome attacks on
the soldiers remains, or the sustained "rise of the dead" that is featured on
the Coming Attractions trailer on the Pinocchio tape.

I know this is kind of a moot point, seeing as how this whole sequence was recut by Jeff Katzenberg before the films original release in 1985, and most of THAT footage is missing and hasn't been seen by eyes outside of Disney, ever. But to cut the existing footage from the release version made me want to put my foot through the wall.

The only glimmer of hope of seeing this film on video - uncut - lies in the fact that the Swedes and Europeans are much much harsher on screen violence than we are here in the states. E.T. - of all things - had some minor cuts for its release there, as did the recent re-release of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves. So, seeing as this is the dub of the European video, then hopefully the American release will not follow suit.

Another strange thing about the transfer is the running time - the film seems
like its on amphetamines. I don't remember anything else being cut, and there
weren't any abrupt cuts in the music (as in the cut resurrection scene, where
the cuts are completely graceless and blatantly interrupt several music cues),
and the voices all sounded normal (I've had the book and record since fifteen)
but if my notes are correct, the film ran a whopping five minutes shorter than
it was supposed to. I don't have the paperwork in front of me like I did then,
but the dubbed tape ran at - I think - seventy-seven minutes, and the film
notes you can read anywhere all say eighty-one minutes or so. I have no
explanation.

Second thing - The Black Cauldron was filmed in the 70mm widescreen process,
the first animated film shot in this way since Sleeping Beauty, and the tape
is HORRIBLY pan-and-scanned. Frequently in the action sequences, characters are
reacting to things that are happening elsewhere on the screen, and we don't see
what's causing them to react. This is never more evident than in Taran &
Eilonwy's escape from the castle, where several thugs see the damage wrought by
Taran's sword, and flee. We know Taran's doing something, but we don't see it.
Also, surround sound doesn't transfer down from PAL to NTSC, so there are
several lines of dialogue that are meant for the surround speakers, and don't
even show up on the soundtrack. Its like listening to a Beatles album with one
of the speakers blown. The worst moments came when Eilonwy was explaining her
Bauble to Taran, and all we hear is Taran's "Oh?" and "Really?" Quite strange.

As to the film itself, well, first off, I need to make this distinction. My pet
peeve both as a filmmaker and a filmgoer is to hear people say, "This film
is..." Film - like all art forms - is subjective. It is viewed in a communal,
collective environment, and that collective can have an impact on your
perception of a film (The Exorcist and Jaws are never so good as when
viewed with a screaming terrified audience, just as Star Wars is better with
a cheering audience than it is alone in your living room). But film is - in the
final analysis - a subjective thing. A film is something to one person, but
might be completely different to another. Just because I say the end of
Schindler's List doesn't work, that doesn't make it not work for YOU. So this
is my approach to film criticism. So take all that I am about to say with a grain of salt.

So as to that wonderfully troublesome The Black Cauldron.... The best things
about the film spring forth from its attitude and vigor. The film has a lot
of energy, and some admirable ambition sorely lacking from most Disney films
since Sleeping Beauty. The look of the film is so far out of the Disney
mainstream that its almost jolting, especially in the deep greys and somber
blacks and browns that make up most of the Horned King's domain. Parts of the
film look almost straight out of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, a dismal failure
of the worst sort I won't even begin to discuss.

But - and its a big but - the film does indeed have several failings. None of them are really fatal (we're not talking Pochahontas and Robin Hood here). The first thing you'll notice is some very poor staging/direction that belies the artists' inexperience. Dallben says goodbye to Taran, and Taran leaves him standing in the doorway, and the scene fades out with a bizarre 3/4 upstage shot of Dallben saying goodbye, and instead of a last shot of home with real emotion,
essentially we get a view of Dallben's butt. Anyone who has spent anytime on
stage knows this is a no-no.

The second thing, I guess is the choppy flow of the story. Gurgi enters the
picture and stops the film cold. And the rest of the film proceeds with like fits and starts, and considerable missed opportunities.

The biggest flaw is in the entire narrative structure of the film. Most Disney animated films are based on the struggle between opposites (good vs. evil, light vs. dark, etc. etc. etc.). And this struggle is usually represented by characters on polar opposites of each other. These movies tend to rise and fall based on the relationship and inherent drama between these two participants. This is why Cinderella is today still memorable despite its rather lackluster art direction and Sleeping Beauty is memorable only because of its art direction. The drama between the StepMother and Cinderella and the other ancilliary characters is alive and vibrant and it lifts the whole movie up just on pure storytelling alone. Maleficent and Princess Aurora meet only once, and just for a few seconds. Yawn

The Horned King is reminiscent of Maleficent in some respects. He's a great looking -- and great sounding -- villain. The trouble is, he doesn't do anything. He kinda sits around, and squeezes Creeper when he feels like it, and maybe makes a few orders here and there, but he's lethargic and - strangely enough - has no real relationship to our heroes, and that robs the film of any real drama. Think of Scar's relationship to Simba, or the Queen's relationship to Snow White. The Horned King here is much more reminiscent of - say - Sauron in Tolkiens "The Lord of the Rings", an evil being possessed of great power hell bent on spreading evil throughout the world. Tolkien had the good sense never to let us even approach this foul being. The Horned King is set up like that, but he's undercut by his comic buffoons and ineffectiveness. For a bad guy, he needs to be doing a lot more than he does here.

I suspect that - like all Disney films that are just busting at the seams to make an "adult" themed picture, there simply is no way for them to go full out and do what they really want to do, and show what they really want to show. Hunchback was almost crippled by the constant war between the serious themes in the material and the standard Disney stock characters shoehorned into a framework that wouldn't hold them. We are frequently told in The Black Cauldron that there is a great war going on, that there is great death and burning and killing, but we never see any of it. Film is a visual medium, and usually, if something isn't seen, it hasn't happened.

So we have a great villain who cannot be shown doing what he does because of concerns over the toddlers in the audience, and this renders the film dramatically stillborn. There's no relationship between the two central characters, and a hole where some drama should be. Its not a great movie.

Remember The Wizard of Oz? That 1939 film also was about a band of misfits trying to face down an unholy evil, but the screenwriters knew that there had to be a relationship between Dorothy and the Witch, hence they gave Dorothy something the witch wanted, and she never goes away. Hen Wen should have been the equivalent for the Ruby Slippers, but the Horned King gets the oracular pig in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, and then the pig is safe with the Fair Folk for the remainder of the film.

These are all signs of shoddy story construction, and ultimately, a subject that Disney Animation - regardless of the peerless technical skill - simply cannot do justice to in the framework of their "family" mandate. Still, despite all that (having said all that) it's a great glorious debacle that, like Hunchback, in spite of its flaws, I dearly love to watch.

Its awfully impressive in many ways, and again, admirable in its attempt to make a clean break from some in-house traditions, and anyone who has seen "Great Mouse Detective" and "Oliver and Co." and "Mermaid" knows this is the best animation Disney did in the 1980's, and this film was hamstrung only by a failing in the story department. $25 million dollars should have bought a decent script (I have friends who could run rings around most of the Disney screenwriters employed here).

I'm awfully glad I had a chance to see it, I think it is by far not the worst
of the Disney animated efforts (Sword in the Stone, Robin Hood, Oliver and
Co., Choke-a-hontas), and while Cauldron is nothing to go raving mad about, it still has some moments of real greatness in it. The effects animation alone are so virtuoso that its shocking that Disney fell so far so fast from "Cauldron" to
"Mouse Detective". I will be interested to see it if is released this fall on
video, and will probably kill for a Special Edition laserdisc (especially if
they let us see Katzenberg's cuts). But Disney needs to do the right thing and
let everyone have the opportunity to decide for themselves.

No film or other piece of art can be banned from public view if it is to be considered real, honest, living art. Art has to have an audience, otherwise its just canvas, or in this case, nitrate. A play has to have an audience, or it's just a rehearsal. A painting, or a song, or a performance means something only when it is processed through an individual mind and soul. This is as old as Aristotle, and its one of the basic elements of theater.

Should box-office flops like Brazil and The Last Temptation of Christ be banned from public view only because they failed to make money at the box office? While The Black Cauldron will never attain the ranks of say, Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty, both of those films were disasters and now stand proudly with their brethren. I would watch Cauldron any day before Mouse Detective, Oliver and Co., The Aristocats, Robin Hood, Fun and Fancy Free, Make Mine Music, Song of the South and Pocahontas. Without question. Without blinking. How can Disney rationalize putting out The Kurt Russell Collection, but leave Cauldron rotting in the vault? The Barefoot Executive is somehow more valid because it made more money than The Black Cauldron? The 1948 animated feature Melody Time -- of all things -- is getting a video release this year. What the hell?!?

If art is to be considered honest and viable, it must be seen, and Disney needs a good slap in the face, because they have nothing to be ashamed of.

--James A. Trav 3/9/98
--
Arnold Bustillo @ compuserve.com

andrew osmond

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

Thanks for a very interesting post, James (and for sending me it as a
private e-mail - appreciated).

>
>Watching the alterations, my heart dropped to somewhere near Singapore. For me,
>the best moments of animation in TBC were during the resurrection of the
>CauldronBorn. One after another after another, they sprang up (three quick
>clasps in all, if memory and my 1984 Pinocchio tape serves) and they all
>leered into the screen in some of the best of Disney Animation's forays into
>the realm of the grotesque. In the European release, one jumps
>up, and then - SNIP! - we cut right to the Cauldron Born jumping onto a few
>soldiers and then - SNIP! - we cut to a reaction shot of Taran et al. watching
>in horror as the soldiers go walking away. None of the more gruesome attacks on
>the soldiers remains, or the sustained "rise of the dead" that is featured on
>the Coming Attractions trailer on the Pinocchio tape.

The version I saw was the Buena Home Video (PAL) release launched in
Britain late last year. As I haven't seen any other, I can't say if the
rise of the undead was as sustained as you recall (certainly, the 'jump
on the soldiers' bit was a blink-and-miss-it affair, and they don't do
anything gruesome after that). It may well have been cut.

>
> but if my notes are correct, the film ran a whopping five minutes shorter than
>it was supposed to. I don't have the paperwork in front of me like I did then,
>but the dubbed tape ran at - I think - seventy-seven minutes, and the film
>notes you can read anywhere all say eighty-one minutes or so. I have no
>explanation.

As I'm sure you know, all movies are impreceptibly 'speeded up' from
cinema to TV/video. I read somewhere that the average 'speed-up' leads
to one minute lost in every 25, but I think it can vary depending on the
process used.

> This is never more evident than in Taran &
>Eilonwy's escape from the castle, where several thugs see the damage wrought by
>Taran's sword, and flee. We know Taran's doing something, but we don't see it.
>Also, surround sound doesn't transfer down from PAL to NTSC, so there are
>several lines of dialogue that are meant for the surround speakers, and don't
>even show up on the soundtrack. Its like listening to a Beatles album with one
>of the speakers blown. The worst moments came when Eilonwy was explaining her
>Bauble to Taran, and all we hear is Taran's "Oh?" and "Really?" Quite strange.

I've had a quick look at my version and the problem doesn't seem so bad.
I can't find any instances of inaudible dialogue (can you tell me which
exact bit I mean? - I presume it's when they're beneath the castle). As
for Taran's swordfight, it might seem clumsy to a purist but I was never
confused about what Taran was doing.

> Parts of the
>film look almost straight out of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings, a dismal failure
>of the worst sort I won't even begin to discuss.

I'm actually very fond of Bakshi's film, and - bite the bullet - I'd far
sooner watch it than Black Cauldron (partly because, as a fantasy fan, I
think LotR does much better justice to the genre - for all its undoubted
faults).
Anyone want to start a Black Cauldron v Lord of the Rings (film) thread?
(Or would that be off-topic?) No flame-war - we could just swap views.

>These movies tend to rise and fall
>based on the relationship and inherent drama between these two participants.
>This is why Cinderella is today still memorable despite its rather lackluster
>art direction and Sleeping Beauty is memorable only because of its art
>direction. The drama between the StepMother and Cinderella and the other
>ancilliary characters is alive and vibrant and it lifts the whole movie up just
>on pure storytelling alone. Maleficent and Princess Aurora meet only once, and
>just for a few seconds. Yawn

That's not an immutable movie law. There are plenty of compelling films
where the two key adversaries seldom (or never) meet; an obvious live-
action example is the Pacino and De Niro characters in Heat. (Though
even here there are parallels set up between the pair - something that a
better BC script might have tried with Taran and the HK, though with the
risk of turning the pic into Return of the Jedi.)
I prefer Cinderella to Sleeping Beauty too, but I think the character
interplay was one of several factors, not the defining one.

>
> The Horned King here is much more reminiscent of - say - Sauron
>in Tolkiens "The Lord of the Rings", an evil being possessed of great power hell
>bent on spreading evil throughout the world. Tolkien had the good sense never
>to let us even approach this foul being. The Horned King is set up like that,
>but he's undercut by his comic buffoons and ineffectiveness. For a bad guy, he
>needs to be doing a lot more than he does here.

Okay, I'll buy this. He's too 'solid' (and uncomfortably Skeletor-like)
to have the sense of universal, numinous evil which Tolkien conveyed
through Sauron (remember the wonderful image of the Eye?). OTOH, he's to
passive to work on a more down-to-earth level. It's an unworkable
halfway-house.

>Remember The Wizard of Oz?

Prefer Return to Oz myself - and no, I'm not alone!

Hen Wen should have been
>the equivalent for the Ruby Slippers, but the Horned King gets the
oracular pig
>in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, and then the pig is safe
with the
>Fair Folk for the remainder of the film.

Agreed. That was sheer clumsiness on the part of the scripwriters.

>
>Its awfully impressive in many ways, and again, admirable in its attempt to make
>a clean break from some in-house traditions, and anyone who has seen "Great
>Mouse Detective" and "Oliver and Co." and "Mermaid" knows this is the best
>animation Disney did in the 1980's, and this film was hamstrung only by a
>failing in the story department.

Hmmm. I'd read that Black Cauldron was stunningly animated in places,
and was looking out for 'jawdrop' scenes, but - as I said in my last
review - I couldn't see anything with the cinematic power of e.g. the
bear-fight in Fox and the Hound or the clock battle in Basil. Maybe it
was all lost in the pan-and-scan, though I was paying close attention. I
agree both Basil and Oliver and Company featured some alarmingly shoddy
drawing in places - the only really bad moment in Cauldron was that
horrible dancing girl. But frankly, I still found Basil and Oliver
hugely enjoyable, whereas BC seemed disjointed, frustrating and rather
boring.

>
>I'm awfully glad I had a chance to see it, I think it is by far not the worst
>of the Disney animated efforts (Sword in the Stone, Robin Hood, Oliver and
>Co., Choke-a-hontas), and while Cauldron is nothing to go raving mad about, it
>still has some moments of real greatness in it.

(Smile.) We'll have to part company here. I still hold that, next to
Robin Hood, BC is much the weakest of the 'major' Disney toon features -
not that it isn't far better than many non-Disney features, of course.
(Haven't seen much of the minor '40s stuff - Make Mine Music, etc - so
can't judge.)
--
andrew osmond

Mark P Vitale

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

Well. I seem to have inspired some "intellectual" postings regarding
the Black Cauldron. It's interesting to read other's points of view
and I hope that people who are reading this NG wsho have seen the film
continue to comment on it.

In regards to the recent posting, I can't comment about further cuts
to the Cauldron Born sequence. I don't remember the film that
well, but I certainly didn't notice any serious music jumps like was
mentioned in the copy I saw. Furthermore, I think that individual
transfer was damaged in some way because the part where the poster
mentions that Elonwy's voice is not there--sorry. The copy I saw
clearly had Elonwy's chirping out of the surround speakers.

I too, want to see a WIDESCREEN, restored, and complete verson of
the Black Cauldron released. I would definately purchase it. The
Pan and Scan was distracting--perhaps most so in the Gywanthiant (or
however you spell it) attack on Hen-Wen. I remember this sequence
as incredibly stunning. But it seems mis-staged and claustrophobic
on tape. Sounds and camera movements seem out of synch with the
chracters and that is probably because ofthe P & S. I've seen stills
of that sequence both at 2:35:1 and 1:33:1 and there really is no
comparison. The cuts hurt the ambience. Please, Disney. release
this film as it was meant to be seen. It's not the best ever done
but it's not the worse (and Robin Hood is not my most hated film either.
I loooooove that sequence after the archery tournament where little
john is riding the tent full of elephants and rhinos with the train
sounds. That is, in my opinion, extremely creative and hilarious--best
part of the film).

From what I understand of the english release of the BC, it was
accompanied
by very little (if any) marketing. Something like Batman:Subzero here
(which is too bad, and excellant film). This would be a perfect
Halloween release in the states. No, it's not scary, but a good
trailer cut with a marketing campaign can certainly generate interest
and sell tapes. If nothing else, people will be curious. With Disney
releasing Miramax and Hollywood and touchstone films that are clearly
adult, how much brand dilution can the Black Cauldron cause?

Oh, and on an unrelated topic. It's interesting just how much MODERN
Disney films rely on The Black Cauldron. Two cases of the top of
my head.

1) When Taren is in the Dungeon, the pan down shot is almost IDENTICAL
to the one in Aladdin (except this was first)

2) The torn hanging tapistries in the Horned King's lair look
IDENTICAL to those found in the Beast's room in Beauty and the Beast.
and Kirk Wise has said on this NG that Disney folks seem to screen
the film at somewhat regular intervals trying to figure out a way to
fix it.

Just an interesting thing. That's ONE way to see the film. Become
a top disney executive.

lapin

unread,

Mar 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/20/98

to

In article <6est9h$lq2$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, vit...@f1n7.u.arizona.edu
(Mark P Vitale) wrote:

> Well. I seem to have inspired some "intellectual" postings regarding
> the Black Cauldron. It's interesting to read other's points of view
> and I hope that people who are reading this NG wsho have seen the film
> continue to comment on it.

[part snipped for brevity]

>
> Oh, and on an unrelated topic. It's interesting just how much MODERN
> Disney films rely on The Black Cauldron. Two cases of the top of
> my head.
>
> 1) When Taren is in the Dungeon, the pan down shot is almost IDENTICAL
> to the one in Aladdin (except this was first)
>
> 2) The torn hanging tapistries in the Horned King's lair look
> IDENTICAL to those found in the Beast's room in Beauty and the Beast.
> and Kirk Wise has said on this NG that Disney folks seem to screen
> the film at somewhat regular intervals trying to figure out a way to
> fix it.
>
> Just an interesting thing. That's ONE way to see the film. Become
> a top disney executive.

All this posting made me want to take a look at this film again.
Fortunatly a few years back a copy of such film appeared in my mailbox.
This though is an Nth generation from what looks to be a 16mm print. There
is a reddish stripe down the left edge. The picture qulity is not too
good, but there is enough semblence in the flickering and such to sort of
make out the picture.

Anyway I was struck by the simularity to Herculese. Perhaps becouses these
are both comming of age stories. The other thing I noted was that the film
has a distinctaively modern Disney look to it. Yet some of the older style
still exists.
The film definalty has some story problem. Still the technical side is
facinating to watch. The castle is something that only animation can do.
The way the light falls, and the shadows works well.
There is some of the Mel Shaw concept art published in an older edition of
New West. A few places this mix of color does come through.
Meby the horned king is what the beast becomes if there is no Belle to save him.

I have posted a few times on this before. And I do have a biased interest
in seeing it quietly released as I have some production materials from the
film.

Now all I got to do is figure out how to become a Disney Exec. I am
between jobs at the moment. Better get that portfolio updated ...
-lapin
--
It is a matter of grave importance that fairy tales should be
respected ... everyone who has considerd the subject knows full well
that a nation, without fancy, without some romance, never did, never
can, never will, hold a great place under the sun
-- Charles Dickens Frauds and Fairies.

Do you think that if the Cauldron was released today to theaters, it
wouldn't do fair business? Of course it would because

a) It can call upon the Brand Equity of Disney
b) it's not availabe in this country on video (for all ye that might
suggest Little Mermaid didn't do so hot last holiday season).

No Disney tends to mean, for a lot of people, family and traditional
values as well as fun and safe environment all wrapped up in a bit
of nostalgia and memories. Syrupy, yes I know, but it does stand for
that among American middle-class people. Disney has a lot more at stake
than Dreamworks, WB, or even Fox if a PG is released--not because of the
actual movie or rating, but what it will do to the perceptions. This
is why the Black Cauldron has been hidden--not because it's necessarily
bad (which I don't think it is) because those live action films under
the Disney label are not best picture quality, but because it falls
under the Animated Classic cateogry which is, significantly more
important and symbolic for Disney. If the Disney name is a throwaway,
why did Touchstone and Hollywood pictures come about? So Disney could
make those action, sex, adult type of pictures to compete in new
markets but not dilute and effectivly cannabilize the DISNEY brand equity.
Disney is afraid BC might harm that equity, as with Mulan getting a PG.
Dreamworks has 1 year of filmmaking and 0 years of animation behind it.
Disney has near 75 years and the title of the Father of Animation behind
it. So come one. Let's not lump it all into the "evil corporate
mentality" that just wants to stymie growth and art. Disney is run as
a business (shock of shocks) and as such, has limitations to what it
can and cannot (or should not do). Push the envelope, yes. Retain
a sustainable competitive edge, yes. But don't destroy brand equity
(especialyl POWERFUL brand equity) in the process.

BC got the equivalent of a G rating in Europe. That, plus the fact that
hardly anyone (ven those alive then) seem to remember it, might push
it back into active status here in the states. I don't know why Mulan
might get a PG (although I have some ideas) rating but I think that the
decision needs to encompas both the aspects of art and business. Deciding
if the Disney name can withstand the innovation is a question that needs
to be adressed an answered. Of course, nobody's asking me so I'll shut
up now.

ELurio

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

>>Dreamworks has 1 year of filmmaking and 0 years of animation behind it.
Disney has near 75 years and the title of the Father of Animation behind it. <<

Bullsh*t. Dreamworks has far more than that. Remember that Speilberg and
Katzenberg have been in the business a collective sixty years or more.

Katzenberg, NOT Eisner, Roy Jr, or Miller and Wilhite was Walt's successor.
Half of Disney's top staff bailed to join Katz in the new studio.

Between this December and July 2000, Dreamworks will release a minimum of SEVEN
animated features, the TV stuff is already out there, and... you get the idea.

Prince of Egypt may be phenominal....

eric l.

Mark P Vitale

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

>>Dreamworks as 1 year of filmaking behind it and 0 years in animation.
>Bulsh$t. It has much more than that.

Sigh. Did you even read the entire posting? Experience doesn't even
come into it. I was talking about brand EQUITY aka perceptions. Yes
people have expected good stuff from Dreamworks because of its top
people who have experience (even though I think expectations are begining
to dip because the studio has yet to get a major hit) but the name
DREAMWORKS does not in any way imply the same things that the name DISNEY
does. I don't CARE who left and who stayed. The point was that Eisner
Katzenberg and Wells worked hard to ressurect the "family envrionment"
perception of Disney which plays a part (wheter anytone likes it or not)
in this PG stuff.

For the record, if I had been referring to filmmaking experience I
would agree with what you said. But I wasn't.

andrew osmond

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

I've been reading the past few posts with some bewilderment, mainly
because I think Cauldron is too slight a film to support such grand
rhetoric. On Mark Vitale's point, as I'm sure he knows, Cauldron has
already been released in Britain as a 'Walt Disney Classic', rated 'U' -
the equivalent of 'G' - with no backlash I've heard of. In terms of
'adult' content, I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove it more intense
than Lion King or Hunchback, or for that matter Bambi or Fantasia.
Showing a character with a cut lip isn't exactly controversial any more.
For heaven's sake, kids see a man being dismembered by T-Rexes in PG
pics and there's only a ripple of disquiet.

Also of course, Disney has released other PG-rated toons - just under
different labels. I'm pretty sure Nightmare Before Christmas
(Skellington Pictures, commissioned and distributed by Disney) was a PG,
and that certainly undermined apple-pie Hollywood norms. If the Disney
execs are really so hung up about BC's effect on their brand image,
what's to stop them releasing it under one of their many subsidiaries?
Or can't just leave the 'Disney' logo off - isn't that what happened
with the rather violent Gargoyles?

To FoslRock, all I can say is that he must have been watching a
different picture. I certainly didn't find anything in BC that was
tangibly more honest, groundbreaking or adult than the likes of
Hunchback or Lion King. My personal view, which I think is shared by
other posters, is that Disney's honestly trying to break out of its
fairy tale/animal adventure framework and the result is often hybrid
features (the gargoyles and Frollo seemed to come from two different
Hunchback films). Frankly, I think the situation's improving. Hunchback,
for example, had a far better narrative than the meandering, pointless
Cauldron. Perhaps Dreamworks' films will point a new way forward,
perhaps not.

For the record, I think the commercial feature toon was reinvented
nearly fifteen years ago by a Japanese pair called Miyazaki and
Takahata, and the rest of the world just hasn't caught up. But that's my
partisan view. If anyone wants to start a slanging match between the
supporters of Disney, Miyazaki, Bluth, Dreamworks and the many other
contenders out there, it might be fun but I'm not sure it'll ultimately
produce more than hot air and flame.
--
andrew osmond

FoslRock

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

Mark Viatle wrote:

>I don't know if this posting is even worth the effort--Fo$1rock seems
>to be rather anti-disney but what the hey. I don't have anything
>better to do at the moment.

How about anti-mediocrity, something the A.W. (after walt) Disney Company
seems to take pride in. Well, except for Toy Story and the Nightmare Before
Christmans (which arent really Disney films)

>The Disney name is a brand. Yes it's a company, but saying an Animated
>Picture from Walt Disney Pictures means a lot more than saying an
>Animated Picture from Dreamworks.

I disagree. Disney films have come to represent misconstrued ideologies that
are masked as art. Disney in $reality$ is playing the role of Jafar, Frollo,
and Scar -and if you cant see this then keep allowing yourself to be fed by
them. Anyone with an artistic background can see the crap that Disney claims
as art.

The disney name has a lot of equity
>built into it that was acuired/reacquired during the past 15 years
>since the Eisner/Katzenberg/Wells era began. Likewise, Live action
>Disney films also have an assoication, but one that is predominately
>negative (but I digress).

No offense but the live action Disney films are very pathetic. It doesnt take
much work with the noggin to write scripts for anything that Disney does in
live action. "George of the Jungle" and "Honey, I shrunk the Kids 3" is proof
enough.

>Do you think that if the Cauldron was released today to theaters, it
>wouldn't do fair business? Of course it would because
>
>a) It can call upon the Brand Equity of Disney
>b) it's not availabe in this country on video (for all ye that might
>suggest Little Mermaid didn't do so hot last holiday season).

I tend to disagree. Even though the Black Cauldron would be sort of (new) to a
lot of people. There would be just as many people that wouldnt find it very
stimulating in todays culture- its very much dated and the story isnt that
incredible, so that is why it would fail to produce at the box office. So it is
probably better that disney left this one alone.

>No Disney tends to mean, for a lot of people, family and traditional
>values as well as fun and safe environment all wrapped up in a bit
>of nostalgia and memories.

Granted I agree that family life and traditional values are of the utmost
importance for a beneficial society. However, I see very timid views from
Disney when it comes to the present state of affairs. If Disney wants to speak
for Americas family stucture- then please present views that would educate and
entertain the masses. I dont see any of Disney's animated features, let alone
their live action films giving us very insightful cultural views. Instead
Disney tries to be politically correct- just to give its stockholders more
power on the footholds of America. No offense, but I dont see Disney taking a
stand for anything except making MONEY. Walts purpose of "Fantasia" was to do
just that- entertain and enlighten, and it is still very much both today. In
fact I wish some of the school systems of america would show this film to their
students- it is a great integration of art and education. Today if you want
animation that takes a stand and entertains- go watch the Simpsons.

Syrupy, yes I know, but it does stand for
>that among American middle-class people. Disney has a lot more at stake
>than Dreamworks, WB, or even Fox if a PG is released--not because of the
>actual movie or rating, but what it will do to the perceptions.

Last time I checked 3 and 5 year olds usually dont go to a theatre by
themselves. Are PG movies really that bad, let alone worse then anything a kid
can watch on TV or play on his Sony Playstation? Please, if we wanted Disney
to speak as the godfather of america why dont we just give in and let them run
the country? A PG rating is far from the end of the world. If parents have
concern over their kids watching something PG, then perhaps they shouldnt let
their kids pass by the arcade when they are in the mall- because that might
corrupt them when they see all the violence in the games.

This
>is why the Black Cauldron has been hidden--not because it's necessarily
>bad (which I don't think it is) because those live action films under
>the Disney label are not best picture quality, but because it falls
>under the Animated Classic cateogry which is, significantly more
>important and symbolic for Disney.

If the Disney name is a throwaway,
>why did Touchstone and Hollywood pictures come about? So Disney could
>make those action, sex, adult type of pictures to compete in new
>markets but not dilute and effectivly cannabilize the DISNEY brand equity.
>Disney is afraid BC might harm that equity, as with Mulan getting a PG.

>Dreamworks has 1 year of filmmaking and 0 years of animation behind it.
>Disney has near 75 years and the title of the Father of Animation behind

>it. So come one.

If you look at all the films when Walt was alive and all the films after Walt
died, you can see the direction that his studio has taken. The animation is
still as great as it ever was, but, something has been missing for a very long
time.

Let's not lump it all into the "evil corporate
>mentality" that just wants to stymie growth and art. Disney is run as
>a business (shock of shocks) and as such, has limitations to what it
>can and cannot (or should not do). Push the envelope, yes. Retain
>a sustainable competitive edge, yes. But don't destroy brand equity
>(especialyl POWERFUL brand equity) in the process.

So you are saying it is better to live in the comforts of mediocrity and
conformity then to live in a world of innovation and cultural stimulation.
Tradition is fine, but enlightenment and evolution are needed in the process.
It seems that the Disney company is de-evolving.

Fo$lRock!

Mark P Vitale

unread,

Mar 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/22/98

to

Fo$lrock, you're still missing my point.

I'm not advocating Disney is the spokesperson for anything. I'm saying
that Americans tend to beleive that Disney represents certain values
and ideas. Granted that HAS been diluted lately, but still the core
disney tries very hard to uphold certain values.

As for the pursuing art aspect of the animated films, well as long as
they're making $100 million in domestic releases why take a chance
on something that may be artisitically innovative, but not accepted? Yes
Walt Disney did that with some of the films he supervised and what tended
to be the reaction? Big losses because the public didn't know how to
accept the films--later they would become masterpieces and classics.
There is no doubt that what was done was incredible however...the
world has changed drastically since the 1940s and you simply can't run
a business in today's environment like the old Disney was run (actually
the fact that the Disney studios stayed afloat back then is somewhat
miraculous).

Innovative art is ALWAYS risky and yes Disney does exist to make a
profit. That's the ultimate goal of any business. Some do it better
than others, you'll find that in any industry. Just because motion
pictures have been labeled art doesn't excuse them from economic theories
of the rest of the world. Just for the record let me say that I felt
Herculues was extremely formulamatic--I predicted almost correctly prior
to seeing the film at what points songs would pop up, etc. I also
enjoyed it very much. Does that mean I support medocricty and such.
Sometimes, yes I do. I'm not always in the mood to watch something new
and innovative and will make me think. Sometimes I'm in the mood for
something brainless and action-packed, or something good but not too
shocking or difficult to follow or understand (Blade Runner falls
into the first category, Speed 2 or Batman and Robin fall into the second
and something like Herculues into the third).

As far as Disney standing only for money. Come one, be realistic. They
don't exist to make the artistic industry happy. They exist to make
money. Period. One can stack on lots of gravy, but that's the sole
reasons for a business to exist in a capatalist market--Disney is no
exception.

And as far as Black Cauldron goes, well. Everybody's opinion is
different. Some love it, some hate it, some like it. I don't love
it, and I don't hate it. I've only "wasted rhetoric" on it because
the whole situation surrounding its dissappearance is interesting
(to me anyways). I think that it is parto f their learning curve
and if one takes it face value, just watches, enjoys the visuals
and such, then it isn't such a bad film. Placing it in time helps
(yeah, yeah I know--classics are supposed to withstand that).

Mark

ELurio

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

>>Sigh. Did you even read the entire posting? Experience doesn't even
come into it. I was talking about brand EQUITY aka perceptions. Yes
people have expected good stuff from Dreamworks because of its top
people who have experience (even though I think expectations are begining
to dip because the studio has yet to get a major hit) but the name
DREAMWORKS does not in any way imply the same things that the name DISNEY does.
I don't CARE who left and who stayed. The point was that Eisner Katzenberg
and Wells worked hard to ressurect the "family envrionment" perception of
Disney which plays a part (wheter anytone likes it or not) in this PG stuff.

For the record, if I had been referring to filmmaking experience I
would agree with what you said. But I wasn't.<<

"Mousehunt" was a hit. It made sixy mill and a profit to boot. The
"Peacemaker" did really well overseas, only "Amistad" failed to deliver.

As to what you call experience, it's well known that Dreamworks animation is
half of Disney. It's got a brandname of sorts, too.

"Paulie" comes out in a month, it'll do mediocre, "Deep Impact" will do better,
and "Small Soldiers," which is as animated as "Space Jam" was, is going to be a
phenominon.

eric l.

FoslRock

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

>Fo$lrock, you're still missing my point.

And you have failed to see mine. In todays world if all that matters is money,
it wont be long until we as a human race plunder into the depths of extinction.

Fo$lRock.

FoslRock

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

Mark Vitale wrote:
>Just for the record let me say that I felt
>Herculues was extremely formulamatic--I predicted almost correctly prior
>to seeing the film at what points songs would pop up, etc. I also
>enjoyed it very much. Does that mean I support medocricty and such.
>Sometimes, yes I do. I'm not always in the mood to watch something new
>and innovative and will make me think. Sometimes I'm in the mood for
>something brainless and action-packed, or something good but not too
>shocking or difficult to follow or understand (Blade Runner falls
>into the first category, Speed 2 or Batman and Robin fall into the second
>and something like Herculues into the third).

Well, it seems that todays world is never in the mood to think. Today we
accept mediocre films and flock to the likes of "Independence Day", "Scream
2", and "Hercules". Im sorry but that type of world has gotten very old to me.
I no longer want to pay 7.50 so I can go into a theatre and watch my mind turn
to mush, only because it is a lot more marketable to get people $not to think$.

>As far as Disney standing only for money. Come one, be realistic. They
>don't exist to make the artistic industry happy. They exist to make
>money. Period. One can stack on lots of gravy, but that's the sole
>reasons for a business to exist in a capatalist market--Disney is no
>exception.

And you can sit there and smile, and pat Disney on the back and say "GOOD JOB,
you guys really make things great.". Im sorry, the idealist that is locked in
my mind, believes in a different world! I believe in a world that educates
through artistic stimulation, not one that formulates kids brains with very
misconstrued, concieted philosophies, that could possibly have a very drastic
effect when these kids come to age.

>And as far as Black Cauldron goes, well. Everybody's opinion is
>different. Some love it, some hate it, some like it. I don't love
>it, and I don't hate it. I've only "wasted rhetoric" on it because
>the whole situation surrounding its dissappearance is interesting
>(to me anyways). I think that it is parto f their learning curve
>and if one takes it face value, just watches, enjoys the visuals
>and such, then it isn't such a bad film. Placing it in time helps
>(yeah, yeah I know--classics are supposed to withstand that).

My friend, NEVER TAKE ANYTHING AT FACE VALUE!

Fo$lRock.

Twdledum

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

Get off it.........YOU are just like Frollo....Telling us all (Quasimodo) that
The World is bad and a bad place to live and that disney is all lies. You are
just live in a pit, and choosing not to OPEN your eyes to all the worlds
wonders. Have a nice day Hermit Crab.

:) :) :)

La Vie Boheme
This Akita, Evita, just wont shut up!

Mark P Vitale

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

Fo$lrock wrote

>not one that formulates kids brains with miscontrued, conceited
philosophies that could have a drastic effect when these kids come
of age.

What? I'm sorry, you've totally lost me. Exacetly what
philosophies are you referring to? The much bashed (on this NG anyway)
Hercules pushed it's okay to be an individual, true heroism, the
virutes of true love, and puttin in some extra work to achieve you
goals. We don't want kids to think that?

Or are you talking about making money being evil? Pal, unless you
live in an isolated tribe (which is doubtful because you're posting
here) economic theories have some sort of impact in your life. That
may not be artistically popular to say that but human society has formed
it self around the exchange process. Has been that way for a long time.
Ideally it may be nice to say don't do anything profitable--make art
come first. But try to look at the flip side. If Disney did that
it would nowhere be near the giant it is today. Hate them or love them
it is a fact that the Walt Disney Company employees a lot of people.
Without the profits that these "society-destorying" practices produce,
a lot of people will get laid off. I'm not sure they'll support such
idealistic thoughts.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not trying to kill off what you're trying
to say. In some ways I agree with you. However, what you're proposing
is to play outside the established rules. That's fine if it's just you,
but Disney has a few more folks to consider. Push the envelope, fine--
just don't do it in a manner that will hurt others.

And for the record, I don't pay 7.50 for moviess. I wait until the dolar
theater. I don't think most movies are worth that kind of money. If I
want good sound, I'll go to a 3.50 matinee.

And I think enough in real life, I like movies that don't make me think
for two hourse because they are a release. Speed 2s, Batman and Robins,
Hercules' are fun films that act as a breath of fresh air into a normal
hectic life. There is a dfinate market for this type of film and
I seriously doubt that it will bring about the end of civilization
as we know it.

Mark

MeccaRJB

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

<<I would watch Cauldron any day before Mouse Detective, Oliver and Co., The
Aristocats, Robin Hood, Fun and Fancy Free, Make Mine Music, Song of the
South and Pocahontas. Without question. Without blinking. How can Disney
rationalize putting out The Kurt Russell Collection, but leave Cauldron
rotting in the vault? The Barefoot Executive is somehow more valid because
it made more money than The Black Cauldron? The 1948 animated feature Melody
Time -- of all things -- is getting a video release this year. What the
hell?!?>>

Bravo, for a great post! I agree 100% on your assessment of The Black
Cauldron's place in the Disney library....A special edition of TBC with the
original cut (before Katzenberg) and widescreen would sell like hotcakes. I
hope Disney is listening.

MeccaRJB

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

<<(Smile.) We'll have to part company here. I still hold that, next to
Robin Hood, BC is much the weakest of the 'major' Disney toon features -
not that it isn't far better than many non-Disney features, of course.>>

What about Sword and the Stone? Uggghhh.

FoslRock

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

>Get off it.........YOU are just like Frollo....Telling us all (Quasimodo)
>that
>The World is bad and a bad place to live and that disney is all lies. You
>are
>just live in a pit, and choosing not to OPEN your eyes to all the worlds
>wonders. Have a nice day Hermit Crab.

My eyes are quite open, especially my third eye.

Fo$lRock

James Travis

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

<<The version I saw was the Buena Home Video (PAL) release
launched in Britain late last year. As I haven't seen any other, I
can't say if the rise of the undead was as sustained as you
recall
(certainly, the 'jump on the soldiers' bit was a blink-and-miss-
it
affair, and they don't do anything gruesome after that). It may
well have been cut.>>

Well, the internet huckster who tried to sell me the PAL for
$250 swears up and down that the film is uncut, but he is quite
simply incorrect. The film is cut, anyone who has the 1984
Pinocchio VHS tape with the Black Cauldron Trailer on it can
prove it beyond the vaguries of a 13-year-old memory.

<<As I'm sure you know, all movies are impreceptibly
'speeded up'
from cinema to TV/video. I read somewhere that the average
'speed-up' leads to one minute lost in every 25, but I think it
can vary depending on the process used.>>

Yeah, its called frame compression, and its quite strange.

You may find it interesting to note that 1986 U.S. legislation
bans this practice for U.S. home video releases without first
informing the consumer of the alterations. Also, the Congress
(who obviously have too much time on their hands) adds a list
of 25 films to a national film registry annually, the registry
supposedly designating these films as national treasures and
making it a crime to alter in anyway. This law made CBS
decide not to air "the Wizard of Oz" for the first time in
generations last year, because for the first time they couldn't
squeeze the film and "adequate commercial time" into the
two-hour window. Boo.

<<I can't find any instances of inaudible dialogue (can you tell
me which exact bit I mean? - I presume it's when they're
beneath the castle).>>

Sure - I'll bring it in on Monday. I'm sure the PAL tape is just
fine, its just the transfer from PAL down to NTSC.

<<As for Taran's swordfight, it might seem clumsy to a purist
but I was never confused about what Taran was doing.>>

Nor was I, in a fill-in-the-blanks kind of way.

<<I'm actually very fond of Bakshi's (Lord of the Rings) and -

bite the bullet - I'd far sooner watch it than Black Cauldron
(partly because, as a fantasy fan, I think LotR does much
better justice to the genre - for all its undoubted faults).>>

Well, there's no denying that Bakshi's film has a lot more
"street credibility" than does Cauldron. As I mentioned in my
post, Disney -- until they form a new label for adult animation
-- is simply, fundamentally incapable of producing a visual
work that even approaches adult subject matter, a problem
Bakshi's film does not have. On the other hand, Black
Cauldron, unlike Lord of the Rings, has an ending. :)

<<Anyone want to start a Black Cauldron v Lord of the Rings
(film) thread?>>

What kind of self-abusing sadists do you think we are? Would
anyone like to start a Porky's vs. Police Academy (film)
thread?

<<No flame-war - we could just swap views.>>

I think my criticisms of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings would be
levelled soley at the art direction and the supposed nature of
character animation. Actually, I'm not altogether sure I
consider Lord of the Rings to be an animated film. Ooooo -
you're sucking me in. Stop it.

<<There are plenty of compelling films where the two key
adversaries seldom (or never) meet; an obvious live-
action example is the Pacino and De Niro characters in Heat.
(Though even here there are parallels set up between the pair -
something that a better BC script might have tried with Taran
and the HK, though with the risk of turning the pic into Return
of the Jedi.)>>

I was just talking about the realm of the animated film as
practiced by Disney (modern Disney, anyway). They succumb
to what is almost inherent in the medium of all animated films
- the depiction of conflict in pure graphic form. This creates a
tendency to distill things down to their basic elements, and it
also creates a tendency towards extremes (Sleeping Beauty
being, maybe, the A-1 winner in this regard).

What it also has done is limit their scopes. As animation has
gotten more and more expensive, it has been disheartening to
see the new breed play it so increasingly safe.

You are quite correct, there are no laws that say films have to
have villains, heavies, songs, heroes, or even a narrative or
dramatic action or conflicts of any kind. But within the
parameters of the Disney animated feature, well...for the new
breed certain things "just aren't done", unless its a sequel,
which sells itself. Anyway, if there is a Disney genre,
"Cauldron" was all the excuse Esiner and Katzenberg needed
to force the new kids stick to it like a mantra. Just as you can't
imagine a Bond film without a villain, today...Ugh. How
depressing. Imagine what it must be like to be in a building
with 2000 of the worlds finest artists conforming to some
vague, formulaic, flowchart...."how to make a Disney film".
Blecch.

Now, I have to admit my own hypocrisy...even if I still haven't
made up my mind if you can create a genre on only a series of
35 films (its still seems more like a formula), I inevitably find
myself criticizing Disney films according to genre theory, as if
they are a genre unto themselves, and praising the ones that
get away from it every now and then (Pinocchio, Fantasia,
Three Caballeros, Alice in Wonderland) even when they suck.
I'm just so tired of seeing the same old thing from Disney, and
if my finger is on the pulse of America, judging by the limited
box-office for Hercules in the U.S. ($100 million is a hit, I
know, I know, but...) when a piece of garbage like Pocahontas
hits and Hercules doesn't, I think it shows how tired we all are
of adolescent heroes and comedic villains who eventually find
some way to fall off a high precipice (less blood that way, but
still violent, just the way we like it!). Been there. Done that.
Again and again and again.

So on that basis, I give Cauldron some points, for its ambition.
Certainly for its effects animation -- But again, can you
imagine how frustrating it must have been to work on that
movie? I don't mean to sound like an apologist, but it must
have been like NBA stars trying to play a finals match in
Yoda's house.

I wish ALL of the footage was around for me to judge so I
could judge The Black Cauldron truly and fairly today, but the
Cauldron-Born resurrection was awfully impressive "back
then". Too bad alot of its missing. And yes, at the age of 15, I
found the Gwythaint attack pretty sensational.

<<I prefer Cinderella to Sleeping Beauty too, but I think the
character interplay was one of several factors, not the defining
one.>>

It might be an unfair comparison on my part, as well.

<<Okay, I'll buy this. (The Horned King) is too 'solid' and
uncomfortably Skeletor-like to have the sense of universal,

numinous evil which Tolkien conveyed through Sauron

(remember the wonderful image of the Eye?. OTOH, he's too

passive to work on a more down-to-earth level. It's an
unworkable halfway-house.>>

Its that family-film-mandate thing working against them yet
again. Either extreme is better than the middle-of-the-road on
display here. He cannot be realized as a complete character
because its too uncomfortable for the toddlers.

<<Hmmm. I'd read that Black Cauldron was stunningly
animated in
places, and was looking out for 'jawdrop' scenes, but - as I said
in my last review - I couldn't see anything with the cinematic
power of e.g. the bear-fight in Fox and the Hound or the clock
battle in Basil.>>

Well, I guess we'll have to disagree on some points. I think the
Bear fight was a major statement made by a very hungry
young animator - the incredible Glen Keane, IMHO the only
"next-generation" Disney animator to stand close to the "old
guys" (with big ol' smoochie points to James Baxter and
Andreas Deja). He's one of the very few guys to "get it", that
making something move is not the same thing as making
something live.

I guess our major disagreemtn would be with the Big Ben
fight in Mouse Detective, I myself found it sluggish, and in
some respects, visually incoherent. I realize that 75% of the
fun of building a 3-D object in the computer is the giddy joy
of being able to put your "camera" anywhere. The problem is,
just because you can pan and dolly and track with abandon,
that doesn't neccesarily mean that you should. Film has
language - moving the camera delivers a message and
information. Moving the camera means things. When you're
just dollying around, its like a baby learning to speak.

And I have something of a problem with these early attempts
with the computer-generated backgrounds/objects (yes, I know
they're in Cauldron, too) because they sorta bastardize the
whole concept of the film's art-direction (a problem only
marginally solved by the Hydra in Hercules). Mouse Detective
is a film with extraordinarily simple backgrounds and some
rather crude clean-up animation, but at least it tries to have
some style. When the computers show up, its visually jarring.
Basically, its as if the kids from Advanced Drafting wandered
into a homeroom Art Class and had a seat. They still haven't
cracked that nut.

<<Maybe it was all lost in the pan-and-scan, though I
was paying close attention. I agree both Basil and
Oliver and Company featured some alarmingly
shoddy drawing in places - the only really bad
moment in Cauldron was that horrible dancing
girl.>>

I know - she's like a guest star from "Cool World". :)

<<But frankly, I still found Basil and Oliver hugely
enjoyable, whereas BC seemed disjointed, frustrating
and rather boring.>>

I abhor Oliver and Co. For me, it is pedestrian on
every level. I can't even enjoy it as an artistic
trainwreck like The Black Cauldron. Its not bad
enough to qualify as trash, and not good enough to
qualify as anything else. Ack! I hated it when I was
17, and I gave it a chance again when I was 26 and
drug a friend along. Big mistake. Mouse Detective at
least has shreds of wit.

<<(Smile.) We'll have to part company here. I still
hold that,
next to Robin Hood, BC is much the weakest of the
'major' Disney toon features - not that it isn't far
better than many non-Disney features, of course.>>

From Best to Worst, I've got it ranked as number 26
of 35.

<<(Haven't seen much of the minor '40s stuff - Make
Mine Music,
etc - so can't judge.)>>

Some HORRIBLE stuff and some GREAT
AWESOME stuff. The package films are truly a
minefield in every sense of that word. See "Reluctant
Dragon" for the "Baby Weems" segment, see "Make
Mine Music" (which was ALSO censored recently --
all African-Americans were deleted from the film)
for "Wille, the Whale who Wanted to Sing at the
Met", see "Melody Time" for "Pecos Bill" and
"Johnny Appleseed", see "Saludos Amigos" for El
Gaucho Goofy, and just don't see "Fun and Fancy
Free" at all.

Good talking at ya. See you around. If we want to
start a thread, maybe we can create a "Robin Hood
Rules" thread, and then shell-shock all the idiots who
wander in and assent.

"Robin Hood Rules! I really like how they took all
that animation from other films and re-drew their
new characters on top of them! What a ingenious
time-saving device! And I don't feel cheated for a
second!"

acccck...

JT out

FoslRock

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

Im sorry, but I see Disney as an attack on individuality, not an advocate of
it. Anything new that comes to the theatre that might be a threat to their
little kingdom, they will try to subvert the herd to keep society watching only
Disney. Anastasia is released, Disney releases "A little Mermaid". When the
"Prince of Egypt" is released, Disney will also release its share of crap in
order to divert the market from seeing POE. Im sorry, I havent seen any good
animated features from Disney (ie. that doesnt include PIXAR or Skellington
Productions) since the days of Walt. The new Disney is completly superficial.
Lets face it, Disney tells us anything beautiful, strong and with power is
better.

Fo$lRock.

Twdledum

unread,

Mar 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/23/98

to

cool, you have 3 eyes.......WOW!

We're not gonna pay RENT
Last years RENT
This years RENT
Next years RENT
RENT, RENT, RENT

Ted Douglas

unread,

Mar 24, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/24/98

unread,

Mar 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/25/98

to

Quick thoughts:

"FossilRock" is obviously young, and while that shouldn't
give anyone a free ride, it certainly does limit how one
should respond to such broad and over-reaching posts.

So without trying to be too mean (it just comes naturally, I guess):

FILMS/ART SHOULD BE STIMULATING AND ENRICHING

While there's a great gorgeous war to be had right there
(I defy you to prove to me that Disney animated films
aren't intellectually stimulating) I'll acquiesce to
the bigger picture --

The problem with the above statement is that Fossilrock is
currently in the world-building phase of his life-experiences,
and he has taken it upon himself to mandate
his tastes and attitudes as the "correct ones" for
everyone else around (films should be more like this, people
should be given that, the masses are sheep that don't know
what's good for them, Blah blah blah).

For you see, my fellow sheep, Disney films are actually chock
full of anti-social messages and loaded political images.
Disney films are racist, ageist, sexist, anti-men, anti-women,
and anti-child agitprop for the political right. The merest
cypher in a Disney film has a secret political agenda - why -
that drawing can't be representative of a single mermaid.
Why, that drawing is representative of the struggle between
the fair and oppressed female gender and the male imperialist
white devil slave masters. Thank God for FossilRock to be
around to tell us these things - what would we do without such
enlightened souls to guard our path down Dopey Drive.

Ahem - just because YOU like something, or have a different
view of a piece of SUBJECIVE ART, it doesn't make the rest
of the world slack-jawed troglodytes for not agreeing with
you.

I hate Oliver and Co., Andrew likes Oliver and Co. Does
that mean Andrew is dumber than me, because he likes that
piece of horse hockey and I don't? I hate "Full House".
Does that make every single 12 year-old babysitter a moron
because they like something I don't. "Oh, Full House does
not challenge me! Therefore, it is a blight on our young
minds and must be driven out."

"Films should be this and films should be that."

Bull.

Films should be seen.

Period.

<<Lets get this straight! Disney acts like it is the
spokesperson for morality and they use their animated
feature films as the medium to present very timid
philosophical views on various social issues. They
pretend that they speak like Plato
(who proclaimed human existence is to seek for the good)
when they actually are more apt to Maccheveli
(who proclaimed that one must be a backstabbing,
kiniving, bastard in order to suceed).>>

Coming This Summer From Walt Disney Pictures:

Plato! -- Join Plato, a young philsopher
with a heart of gold as he and his wacky sidekick pals
try to create a utopian republic. He is joined by the
spirited and independent Lysistra: "Kiss you?!? Not
until you boys stop fighting." and the evil, political
realist, the Prince. "I, a backstabbing, kiniving bastard,
must stop Plato! And then I must find out what kiniving
is..."

<<They start to present views which are unjust and
irrational to real life.>>

Yeah, especially that "tolerance" message that keeps
creeping in. Ooooh, that evil Disney and their unjust
messages!

<<The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame,
Hercules have all been "Disneyized" and it really doesnt
do justice for the world.>>

Disneyized? You mean those subjects were adapted by Disney
into big screen musicals? Or are you complaining about
the treatments these subjects have been given? And how
can a movie "do justice for the world"? What are you
talking about?

<<The Black Cauldron however, speaks the opposite. It
defies this post-Walt Disney tradition - and its like

the crazy old genius uncle that the family keeps locked
in the attic, so that the family can pretend like they
are quite a normal bunch.>>

Oh yeah. Its like that. You know, that happens so often
that it actually does make for a good metaphor. Why, I
myself was helping a friend lock his crazy genius uncle
in the attic just the other day...

<<They know that this will make people think, "wait a

second, Disney did that, what's wrong here?" Why do you

think Roy Disney is trying so hard to get a "G" rating
for "Mulan", its the same old political jargon.>>

On wait basis are you specualting that Roy Disney is
"trying so hard" to get a G rating for Mulan?

<<And its gotten really old.>>

Not as old as this post.

<<Now DreamWorks is going in the opposite direction.>>

BWAH HA HA HA Haaaaa....excuse me for the gutlaugh. I
just couldn't help myself.

<<They are trying to reinspire artistic epics back into
our culture (it seems to have started with TITANIC)>>

BWAH HA HA HA HAaaaaa......
An animated film that began preproduction in 1995 was
inspired by a movie released 14 weeks ago. Whooo!
Man, that "Titanic" must be one heck of a movie.

<<...by going into realms that Disney is afraid to step
into.>>

Biblical Epics? Yup, come to think of it, outside of
"Small One", Disney doesn't do much "religious"
work.

<<Perhaps, Disney fears they will lose mighty bucks if
they try breakthrough animation>>

Yeah, that's Disney, all right. Afraid of breakthrough
animation. whoo, I myself shudder just to think about
it.

<<...because they will no longer be pretending to speak
for society and the family structures of america - which

is a joke to begin with.>>

Disney provides a general place for parents to spend time
with their children. That's their family mandate. That is
the ONLY family message they ever send. They don't say
families should be x, y, and z. Again, it is YOU who are
trying to speak for THEM.

<<However, Disney is going to have to change after this
first wave of DreamWorks features, due to the fact
that they are presenting animation that will be somewhat
(new) to the mainstream.>>

Disney has been fighting all comers since 1928, and is
still around. When DreamWorks closes its doors in 40
years, Disney'll still be here.

<<This is for the future of art as well as entertainment
and culture. Plus DreamWorks has Katzenburger and a lot of talent
behind them.>>

BWAAAAH HA HA HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaa....He gets all
self-important about the future of art and then he
says "Katzenburger"....I love it. DreamWorks is going to
move the landscape of the "future of art" forward by
working with Jeff K., the guy who cut all the "offending"
PG-rated animation out of "The Black Cauldron" IN THE
FIRST PLACE!!!! You HAVE to be making this stuff up.

<<I am very interested to see what the all mighty Katz
can do without the restraints that Disney put on him
when he was working under their jurisdiction.>>

BWAH HA HA HAaaaaaa....Whose jurisdiction? Disney's
jurisdiction? Oh - you must mean MIKE EISNER's jurisdiction,
because there was NOBODY telling Jeff K. what to do.
Again, you're making stuff up.

<<I think we all will find "Prince of Egypt" very
charming, and "Antz" is going to blow us away.>>

Thank you once again for pre-supposing we all think
like you do.

<<Of course, the sheep of this world wont know the
difference either way, and the problem is there are
way to many sheep. That is the reason alone that Disney
has made it this far.>>

Disney has succeeded because the people are sheep? I
think Disney has succeeded because they make a quality
product and do a good job of selling that product to
consumers.

I can't stand it when people think they can speak for me
or anyone else. Its a huge pet peeve - and setting
yourself up as some sort of artisitc arbiter is almost
as annoying.

That Machevelli guy indeed!

--James A. Trav 3/24/98

Twdledum

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

Screw off Teddy, obviosly you dont know musical theater. You're Missing out on
one of the best shows......................
RENT!

To dogs......NO Benny to YOU!

Ed Rhodes1

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

> I would stand by the following:
>
> The Fox and the Hound *
> The Great Mouse Detective
> The Rescuers Down Under
> Aladdin *
> The Lion King
> Chip 'n' Dale: Rescue Rangers *
> TaleSpin *
> Darkwing Duck *
> Gargoyles
>
>The ones I marked with an asterisk I would assert are comparable or better
>than Walt's golden era work, with FatH and CnDRR featuring the cartoon
>characters that I've found the most compelling. The current slump has only
>existed since "Pocahontas" and I'd hope that the Disney people can work to
>pull out of it.

I have to agree with you on most of these, except Fox & The Hound. I think a
lot of that was episodic nonsense. I think that's the movie Eisner was thinking
of when he insisted on full scripts before animation. (Seriously, they were
letting the storyboard be the script.) While I liked a lot of Tod and Copper's
interplay, basically I didn't care for the film at all.

MeccaRJB

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

<<Most Disney fans here were turned
off by the perception of Disney attacking competition too harshly, and most
went out to see "Anastasia" contributing to its impressive box office>>

"Impressive box-office"? By Fox's own admission, they spent $50 million on
marketing for Anastasia. The film stands at a domestic take of $55 million.
Not much profit...not a good movie. The re-release of The Little Mermaid
was more profitable than Anastasia even with a limited release. I believe
"most Disney fans" saw "Mermaid" again on the big screen. As boring as
Pocahontas is, it destroyed the domestic gross of Anastasia. Better luck
next time, Fox. Instead of low-profile animated bomb, you managed a
high-profile animated bomb.

Mark P Vitale

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

>Fox and the Hound is the one where Eisner insisted on a script.

Sorry, that was Mouse Detective. Eisner was still at Paramount when
Fox was released (1981). It was the "changing" of the guard movie.
Somewhat limited budget, fledgling animators. Not a bad movie, good
ending, but somewhat saccrine. I like it, though.

Good Bear sequence too.

Perry Denton

unread,

Mar 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/26/98

to

In article <tMtS.1568$lq4.2...@news3.atl.bellsouth.net>,

MeccaRJB <ns_me...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>"most Disney fans" saw "Mermaid" again on the big screen. As boring as
>Pocahontas is, it destroyed the domestic gross of Anastasia. Better luck
>next time, Fox. Instead of low-profile animated bomb, you managed a
>high-profile animated bomb.

Considering at $58 Mil, the film finished in the top 30 for the year
and I'm sure video sales next month will do Disney-like numbers, say
over 10 million sold.

Look at Swan Princess 2 released last year also. It grossed
a total of $236 *thousand*. Air Bud (Disney) was considered
a success at $24 Mil, and Anastasia finished just behind
Disney's Jungle to Jungle which grossed $59 Mil.

Sure, grossing $100 Mil would have sent Disney a big message,
but even Hercules missed that mark (barely though).

I believe Anastasia grosses were hurt by two factors:
1. Disney's Re-release of Little Mermaid.
2. The movie was moved to the cheap theaters after just 4 weeks,
before the Christmas season.

I went during the holidays and the showings were packed, even
at 1pm. They could have easily continued to make good grosses
throughout the Christmas season.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of Disney (got everything on laserdisc
along with a few of their box sets), but Anastasia was a
great animated movie, with great songs and music.

Perry
--
--
Perry Denton
Motorola, Inc.
Schaumburg, Illinois
Phone: (847) 538-7195

lapin

unread,

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to andrew osmond

On Fri, 20 Mar 1998, andrew osmond wrote:

> Thanks for a very interesting post, James (and for sending me it as a
> private e-mail - appreciated).
> >
> >Watching the alterations, my heart dropped to somewhere near Singapore. For me,
> >the best moments of animation in TBC were during the resurrection of the
> >CauldronBorn. One after another after another, they sprang up (three quick
> >clasps in all, if memory and my 1984 Pinocchio tape serves) and they all
> >leered into the screen in some of the best of Disney Animation's forays into
> >the realm of the grotesque. In the European release, one jumps
> >up, and then - SNIP! - we cut right to the Cauldron Born jumping onto a few
> >soldiers and then - SNIP! - we cut to a reaction shot of Taran et al. watching
> >in horror as the soldiers go walking away. None of the more gruesome attacks on
> >the soldiers remains, or the sustained "rise of the dead" that is featured on
> >the Coming Attractions trailer on the Pinocchio tape.

>
> The version I saw was the Buena Home Video (PAL) release launched in
> Britain late last year. As I haven't seen any other, I can't say if the
> rise of the undead was as sustained as you recall (certainly, the 'jump

> on the soldiers' bit was a blink-and-miss-it affair, and they don't do

> anything gruesome after that). It may well have been cut.

I believe the scene was cut *after* the coming attractions trailer was
made but before it's initial release back in 1985. I read in "the
Encylocpedia of Disney Characters" that the Cauldron Born scene was one of
the major scenes to suffer cuts made very soon before the film was
released to try and make it less scary (including a scene where a guard is
strangled)

> > but if my notes are correct, the film ran a whopping five minutes shorter than
> >it was supposed to. I don't have the paperwork in front of me like I did then,
> >but the dubbed tape ran at - I think - seventy-seven minutes, and the film
> >notes you can read anywhere all say eighty-one minutes or so. I have no
> >explanation.

>
> As I'm sure you know, all movies are impreceptibly 'speeded up' from
> cinema to TV/video. I read somewhere that the average 'speed-up' leads
> to one minute lost in every 25, but I think it can vary depending on the
> process used.

*huh*?
However since this tape was a transfer from PAL onto NTSC that's probably
the reasoning--when it's dubbed from one format to the other frames are
lost and the time ends up different.

> >These movies tend to rise and fall
> >based on the relationship and inherent drama between these two participants.
> >This is why Cinderella is today still memorable despite its rather lackluster
> >art direction and Sleeping Beauty is memorable only because of its art
> >direction. The drama between the StepMother and Cinderella and the other
> >ancilliary characters is alive and vibrant and it lifts the whole movie up just
> >on pure storytelling alone. Maleficent and Princess Aurora meet only once, and
> >just for a few seconds. Yawn
>
> That's not an immutable movie law. There are plenty of compelling films

> where the two key adversaries seldom (or never) meet; an obvious live-
> action example is the Pacino and De Niro characters in Heat. (Though
> even here there are parallels set up between the pair - something that a
> better BC script might have tried with Taran and the HK, though with the
> risk of turning the pic into Return of the Jedi.)

> I prefer Cinderella to Sleeping Beauty too, but I think the character
> interplay was one of several factors, not the defining one.

Hrmm---I much prefer SB to CInderella but ah well... I still do prefer
SNow White to both.

> >I'm awfully glad I had a chance to see it, I think it is by far not the worst
> >of the Disney animated efforts (Sword in the Stone, Robin Hood, Oliver and
> >Co., Choke-a-hontas), and while Cauldron is nothing to go raving mad about, it
> >still has some moments of real greatness in it.

>
> (Smile.) We'll have to part company here. I still hold that, next to
> Robin Hood, BC is much the weakest of the 'major' Disney toon features -
> not that it isn't far better than many non-Disney features, of course.

> (Haven't seen much of the minor '40s stuff - Make Mine Music, etc - so
> can't judge.)

I'd place it somewhere near the lower middle on my list:) RObin Hood is
rock bottom for me too, but Black Cauldron would probably be higher than
Aristocats, Sword in the Stone, and Oliver and Company. WHat do I know
though--Pocahontas is one of my favorites:)
As for the 40's "features"--I don't think you can really rank them with
the others since they are package films. Make Mine Music and Melody Time
are worth it to me for some of their more abstract and surreal segments
Eric

Eric J. Henwood-Greer

unread,

Mar 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/29/98

to Ed Rhodes1

On 21 Mar 1998, Ed Rhodes1 wrote:

> >1) When Taren is in the Dungeon, the pan down shot is almost IDENTICAL
> >to the one in Aladdin (except this was first)
>
> Oh yeah, Disney's more than happy to utilize footage from older films. My
> daughter felt that the shot of Herecules and Meg rising up to Mt. Olympus was
> lifted from Aladdin and major parts of "Phony King Of England" in Robin Hood is
> lifted from "The Aristocats" and "Snow White"
>
>
It's infamous that Marian's dancing in Robin Hood in the number you
mentioned was *traced* actually from Snow White's dancing in the dwarves'
house in SNow White
Eric

Raymation

unread,

unread,

Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98

to

In article <01bd5c1f$1a665ea0$LocalHost@pistol>, "David Pochron"
<news...@mindspring.com> wrote:

No. I sound like those who bash Black Cauldron. I did not like TFatH. I am
as passionette about animation as anyone. Obsessed by it and of the
creation if it.
I am not telling others not to see TFatH. On the contrary I encorage
others to see it; Just as I feel that TBC or Theif and the cobler should
be seen as intended.
I do not care for the Lion King either. For some films once is enough. I
suppose someday I will see TFatH again.
Recenty I came accross a used Aristocats LD. Another film I saw only once
and did not care for. So like they used to say on the re-runs of the
Mickey Mouse club "Anything is possible." And while I would rather see
Pocahantus or Sward in the stone before I see TFatH a second time; Who is
to know what will come my way in a format I enjoy.
I think animation should be innovative, take us outside the bounds of our
universe. There was a lot of promise in TFatH. I waited for it eaagarly.
Perhaps with too much antisipation. Unfortunatly the script was bad. (or
non-existant). Perhaps I was too old at the time of it's release. I was in
college, attempting to use computers to make an animated film. Fustrated
that the ones who had the fast hardware had no sense of story. Maybe the
cynisisim of the world poisioned me to the simple story. The realisation
that I would not become an animator for (Walt) Disney. That what I dreamed
of never existed.
How during the development of TFatH and TBC. I wrote ungrammetical letters
to the studio begging for a tour. The thrill finding an artical in a
magazine (usually refering to the elusive funnyworld) that gave hints of
what might be. There was a net back then, and I was on it. Yet Disney was
not. When I did want to speak of disney on the proto of the net, there was
no one to talk to. Animation was something to be consumed, not to be
produced.
Yet as tight as the doors to Disney were closed at the end of the Miller
era. The doors to Lucas were open. I walked the canal district halls of
Sproket and ILM with abandon. But Sproket was not Disney. I found film
making boring. The ren-fare provided a better surrogate. Apple computer,
until the month before last an even better surogate.
What does this have to do with TFoH? Only to tell you that I saw it as a
hypercritical aprentist. Like Mickey, an aprentist who wanted to use the
master's tricks before it was time. Maybe after nearly 20 years TFatH has
come of age.
And Yes, like the right wing fundamentalist, of which I used to be, I post
my rants out of envy. Now I like to break the rules (or at least bend
them). I still find TBC thrilling. Gurgi is what animation is about. The
tracks through the castle in 70MM were like walking into a D&D adventure.
I do not identify with dogs, I like humaniod animation. The Fairies of TBC
I find captivating. (anyone with a brit copy found tinkerbell's cameo?)
Yes TBC (and TFatH) are flawed, but that only lead to films like _Baisil
of Baker street_ which is one of my all time disney favorites and a film
which I think Walt would have liked. TLM, BatB and Alladin would not be
what they are if not for the lessons learned on TBC (and I will admit
TFatH). Both of these *are* important films in the Disney cannon.
Again, never once did I say not to see TFatH. Only that I did not like it
enough to want to see it again.
Now the fox in Mary Poppins is one of the best things about that film.
Especially when eating a candy apple. Maybe I thought disney foxes had
Irish accents.

I an sorry that I ruffled your fur. At least now you know what us TBC fans
must endure. And that from those who have not even seen the film.
-lapin

lapin

unread,

Mar 30, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/30/98

to

In article <6fp3he$l...@piglet.cc.utexas.edu>, j...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Juan
F. Lara) wrote:

> - Juan F. Lara
> http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~jfl/intro.html
>
> Vixey: Ooo, young? Um, I'm not doing anything. I'll help you find him!

This thread got split two ways. See my followup to the one that starts
"The Fox and The Hound ..."

Ed Rhodes1

unread,

Mar 31, 1998, 3:00:00 AM3/31/98

to

> Actually, "The Fox and the Hound" would be the film I'd pick as the best
>of all the Official-Features. :-) The film is episode, but it still builds up
>to the big confrontation between Tod and Copper during the last 10 minutes or
>so of the film.

The last ten minutes of the film are the fights between Copper and the bear and
Tod and the bear and the final defense of Tod by Copper. (Now <that> sequence,
with Copper standing over Tod's body in defiance of the hunter... now <that>
killed me!)

> The conflict over whether a fox and hound should be friends
>is at the center of attention for nearly the whole film.

Granted the overall theme is the friendship between Tod and Copper, but the
film still jumps from sequence to sequence to me.

> A film I'd call
>episode is Bluth's "Thumbalina", which stumbled from one scene to another
>without any connecting theme.

Oh God, no! Not an image! I don't need an image!

I <hated> that movie, that stupid bluebird with his dumb song!

>
>> I think that's the movie Eisner was thinking of when he insisted on full
>> scripts before animation. (Seriously, they were letting the storyboard be
>> the script.)
>
> Uh, isn't making cartoons from scripts what's wrong with animation
>today?
>:-) Weren't all the great cartoons of Disney and Warner made with storyboards
>as the "scripts"?

The short ones yeah, the animators at Warner freaked when the producer (who had
<no> concept of animated shorts) demanded scripts. (They didn't have any real
scripts, they would throw out ideas for gags until they had about seven minutes
worth, then start working on them.) But as far as features were concerned, Walt
<was> the script. He knew exactly where he was going and they used to
storyboard as a bridge between Walt's vision and the animator's talents. Once
Walt was gone, the storyboard became a crutch that (IMHO) damaged the
storytelling abilities.

Andrew Hollingbury

unread,

Apr 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/6/98

to

lapin wrote in message ...

>I do not identify with dogs, I like humaniod animation. The Fairies of TBC
>I find captivating. (anyone with a brit copy found tinkerbell's cameo?)

I have Black Cauldron. So where's Tinkerbell then?

Andrew Hollingbury
a.holl...@ukonline.co.uk

lapin

unread,

Apr 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM4/6/98

to

In article <6gb7m2$9cq$1...@morse.news.easynet.net>, "Andrew Hollingbury"
<a.holl...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:

She is one of the fairies in Eddelwig's[sp] land. You only see her fly
across in a long shot. There must be 150 fairies in the shot. Not having a
legit copy of the film, It would be hard to say where exatitally she is. I
saw this as a still on a disney desk calendar.
-lapin (julieP)