Who was Disney's target demographic with Into the Woods? - Page 3

[inception]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 11:12pm

I was gonna go out tonight and see this but reading about theatre's full of children has put me off and then reading best12bars post made me consider just staying home and watching Mary Poppins and Snow White. But gonna go to drag karaoke instead... maybe they'll have some ITW songs?

best12bars wrote:
I think it's great that kids are seeing this even if the parents are slightly puzzled and pissed that it isn't all cotton candy and sunshine.

Disney also had the women's suffragette movement, including references to throwing rotten eggs at the prime minister and "Mrs. Pankhurst" (Google her) being clapped in irons again, and a rousing patriotic political number ... (think that was for the kids?) ... and a number about the importance of tuppence in a bank account with a bunch of doddery old men pontificating ...

They also had a huntsman sent into the woods to bring back a young girls heart in a box.

You know ... for the kids.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 12/27/14 at 11:29pm

Disney's target demographic for INTO THE WOODS = Homosexuals and Sondheimites.

[perfectliar]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 12:50am

phantom8019 - "It made me wonder... when is the last time movie audiences could choose from 2 big-budget (ie, 50 million+) movie musicals?"

Well neither had budgets above $50 million, but Rent and The Producers were both playing in theatres in late 2005 (and their budgets weren't far off: $40 and $45 million, respectively).

Tangled and Burlesque, while not based on stage musicals, were both released in November 2010.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 1:20am

Giants, decast, starship,

Your decrees on the "right" to way to raise children (yeah, like subjecting them to miserable fare like Into the Woods) are presumptuous, arrogant, ludicrous and beyond grotesque.

As for those who snottily blame the poor duped parents for not "doing their resarch," get off it, will ya? It's Disney. It has well-known fairy tale characters like Cinderella. In a normal universe, that's all a parent and child should need to know to have certain expectations going in, and to have those expectations met 100% by what they see. They should not be obliged to do research beforehand about the work of two people they never heard of to find out that they would be getting a "deconstructed " (a fancy way of saying sabotaged) version of these fairy tales, with ugly music, a lot of pretentious, patronizing lectures, and unhappiness for both children and adults like.

Strange as it may seem to some people here, parents have greater concerns than reading 1,526,731 posts a day for months on end about Into the Woods on Broadway World. Their world, surprise, suprise, does not revolve every second of the day around one Stephen Sondheim, as is the norm here. They actually have a life, and are concerned about such "unsophisticated" matters as earning a living, being able to support their children and raising their children CORRECTLY, teaching them right from wrong instead of immoral relativism, and instilling in them a positive outlook towards life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as opposed to the miserable vision of life the joyless elitist snots would like to ram down their children's throats.

In other words, all blame should be placed entirely and solely where it belongs: on Disney, Sondheim, and Lapine.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:20am

While you're at it 8BC, burn all copies of the works of Bruno Bettleheim, amiright?

[smallvillefan16]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 11:58am

They are trying to target all the main demographics, but I've come to realize that the trailers are actually very misleading. I was on vacation this past week, and I was [shockingly] surprised how many people I spoke with that want to see the film. I then said it was a musical, which, to my surprise they all basically went WHAAAT??

A friends husband wanted to see it thinking it was about little red riding, but had no idea it was a musical.

They also play up the factor that it has fairy tales [which is correct], but it doesn't show that it's a dark/sexualized version of fairy tales. I went with my cousin who was very surprised by how dark the film was.

I just think its interesting to hear peoples thoughts that are not familiar with the show. I'm still shocked by how many people I spoke with that didn't know this was a musical.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 12:08pm

Anyone with cash for a movie ticket?

[GiantsInTheSky2]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 12:22pm

"Oh I don't know what this movie is about from the trailer, but I don't need to look into it at all" = lazy. No one was talking about spending their time looking through threads on a message board, get a grip. It takes less than 3 minutes to GOOGLE "Into The Woods", find Wikipedia or one of the many articles written about the film or just a synopsis. You're finding excuses to not take preemptive measures (if you so wanted them) and get angry about something. You can't expect a movie making BUSINESS to be looking after every parent's way of raising a kid. Just do your damn job.

Side note, did you forget was 'PG' even means? "Parental guidance suggested – SOME MATERIAL MAY NOT BE SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN." The movie wasn't rated G, you got what the rating suggests.

Why wouldn't you look into the movie to see if it seemed interesting enough to spend money on anyways? Movie ticket's aren't cheap, along with popcorn & drink, just two people alone gets to around $40. I'm not going to see Interstellar because I looked into it and was incredibly bored by the concept and plot. So I decided to not spend money on it. Wow, so difficult, so much time, so many message board threads - except not. It took the five minutes I was in a bathroom to figure that mystery out.

As for "it's Disney, it has well known characters" - several members of this thread have mentioned how Disney has always had a dark side and more serious subjects (Bambie, The Lion King, Snow White, etc.) so I wonder if you're being serious or trolling.

[Jay94]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 12:30pm

This would seem to be the primary problem with this movie. It doesn't really know who it's trying to please. It's not soft and escapist enough for kids and tweens (and many adults) and not dark and intellectual enough for the fans. For this reason, the film appears to be pleasantly satisfying many people but hardly blowing anyone's socks across the room and shaking the rafters.

[Lavieboheme3090]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 12:32pm

After8 why are you telling us this? Isn't there a movie theater you should be standing in front of warn people!? I am beginning to think you don't care as much about the children as you let on, otherwise you would be out there doing something about it, and not just complaining on a message board. Slacktivism at it's best... Smh

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 12:47pm

"It has well-known fairy tale characters like Cinderella. In a normal universe, that's all a parent and child should need to know to have certain expectations going in..."

You see AfterEight, part of the problem is that Cinderella is not as well known as you think it is. There were many audible gasps over the cutting off of body parts, and there are complaints about this on various message boards. That is in the original Grimm story. Most of these fairy tales are dark to begin with. And just because it is based on a fairy tale, doesn't mean it is made for little kids. Would you have taken your grand kids to see Snow White and the Huntsman? I mean it says Snow White, so it must be kid friendly, right?

Furthermore, there is the MPAA rating system. It is in place for this very reason. If something is rated over G, then it is the parents job to find out why and decide if it is really appropriate for their 5 or 6 year old. It doesn't take much to find this "PG (for thematic elements, fantasy action and peril, and some suggestive material)" as it is printed on the poster and trailers for the film. If you want more specifics it is quite easy to find various databases such as Kids-in-Mind that will tell you exactly what may raise concerns. A responsible parent does SOME degree of research before allowing a child to watch a movie, even if it is simply watching the trailer and saying, "Gee this looks a little too dark for Timmy and Johnny, maybe I should see it first before they see it."

Kids in Mind

[Fantod]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:11pm

Okay, Cinderella was originally from 1697, which was a way more gruesome time. Parents shouldn't expect Bloody Bloody Brothers Grimm when they go into a Disney movie. That's why Disney exists! And a trailer IS supposed to be all you need as research for a movie. That's why trailers exist.

I am not against the movie being released, but choosing to release it under the Disney brand was wrong. Disney owns Touchstone for movies like this. Disney as a brand should have a standard, but they broke it for this movie.



Updated On: 12/28/14 at 02:11 PM

[wonderfulwizard11]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:15pm

The first full length movie Disney ever released, Snow White, has a fairly major plotline about removing a girl's heart and placing it in a box as a trophy. I don't know about you, but my younger self would prefer anything in Into the Woods to the horror of that scenario, or anything in Pinocchio. Kids may not like Into the Woods, but the idea that they can't handle the content, whether from Disney or not, is patently absurd.

[mar6411]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:19pm

Parenting advice from Fantod and After 8 - that's rich.

Parents are supposed to be responsible. How is that asking a lot? It takes moments to figure it out.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:23pm

"I am not against the movie being released, but choosing to release it under the Disney brand was wrong."

Maybe Disney has decided it's time for you to grow up, Fantod, you effing childish old man.

[Kad]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:25pm

Disney released ALL of the Pirates of the Caribbean films under their banner with little protest from anyone. All were PG-13 and based off of a beloved attraction geared to families.

So.... what Disney standard, Fantod?

Updated On: 12/28/14 at 02:25 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:29pm

It's the Fantod/After 8 Doily Test:

Could you watch this movie in the apartment mother left you (as her framed photo looks on) and your nephew's toddler thinks she's sitting down to a lovely bedtime story with no rough edges?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:45pm

Namo, you need to be nice to Fantod. He's very VERY sensitive.

[ljay889]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 2:47pm

Honestly, I'm getting pleasure out of all the outraged parents. There is no possible way that INTO THE WOODS is the worst thing a child has seen or heard in today's world.
Updated On: 12/28/14 at 02:47 PM

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 3:07pm

"That is in the original Grimm story."

The Grimm version was not the original telling of this tale.

"And just because it is based on a fairy tale, doesn't mean it is made for little kids."

Who were the Disney animated versions of fairy tales meant for?

"Honestly, I'm getting pleasure out of all the outraged parents."

Of course you are. You and all those like you.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 3:09pm

Grow up, AfterEight. I realize at your age you revert back to childhood but you really will survive grown up narratives.

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 3:24pm

"Parenting advice from Fantod and After 8 - that's rich. "

Parenting advice--- lectures, actually, not advice--- from that expert on the raising of children, Stephen Sondheim: that's richer still.

What a joke. And that his legion of worshippers insist that we accept his "lessons" as the word of God: that's a bigger joke, still. A big, grotesque joke.

Children will listen, indeed.

For a sane world, not to you, I hope. Not to you.



Updated On: 12/28/14 at 03:24 PM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 3:25pm

"The Grimm version was not the original telling of this tale."

I don't believe that I ever once said that it was. I very specifically referred to the original Grimm story, i did not say anything about the original iteration of the tale. Keep in mind that Perrault's telling of the tale is also not the original version of the story, although it is the most popular.

Who were the Disney animated versions of fairy tales meant for?

I never said a word about the Disney animated films. I was referring specifically to Into the Woods. Where did you even come up with that question? You made two separate points. That it was Disney AND "It has well-known fairy tale characters like Cinderella. In a normal universe, that's all a parent and child should need to know to have certain expectations going in, and to have those expectations met 100% by what they see." I simply stated that just because something is based on a well known fairy tale does not mean that it is meant for young children. Again, I ask would you take a young child to see Snow White and the Huntsman just because it is based on Snow White, a well known fairy tale character?

[After Eight]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 3:35pm

"I simply stated that just because something is based on a well known fairy tale does not mean that it is meant for young children."

And I asked you who the Disney animated version of Cinderella was meant for. Because like it or not, that is the version that has supplanted all others in the cultural consciousness of that tale.

As for your question regarding Snow White and the Huntsman, I didn't see it, and I have no idea what it even was.

Updated On: 12/28/14 at 03:35 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 12/28/14 at 3:54pm

When has that stopped you before?