MovieChat Forums > Condorman (1981) Discussion > One question, why? Sorry, another quest...

One question, why? Sorry, another question, how?


Why and how? What is the point? Silly and even more childish than childish,a nd seriously underfunded for a Disney film.

reply

questions to which there never will be an answer



When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...

reply

If you 2 are so stupid that you can't understand The simple plot of this movie, then how the h*** are you able to survive in the world?????

~~~~~~~~
FREEDOM IS THE RIGHT OF ALL SENTIENT BEINGS!
Will you fight for freedom, or against it?

reply

I was not expecting to recognize any names on this board.


...something to do with Sheckley's contract with Omni-
or maybe he just need the beer $ ?

Who invited E.T. -?

reply

It isn't as good as SW IV : A New Hope, and it isn't as bad as Highlander 2, but if you don't care for the movie why would you bother to sign on to this thread just to dis it ??

reply

This film is one of those which entertains because of the sheer imnplausibility and stupidity of the whole scenario. Why? Because it's light-hearted, clean, and jolly. How? By asking audience members to suspend their disbelief, in no way any differently than a huge percentage of other films.

reply

I've never seen this film, I remember a couple of simpletons at school saying it was the best film ever but for whatever reason I've always managed to miss it on TV etc.

Anyway, I saw the DVD last week and couldn't believe how bad it was, even for a Disney film.

I realise that I'm supposed to have this view as a 37 year old man, compared to a 7 year old...and I suspect that the kids watching this were supposed to be wowed by the James Bond lite stunts and vehicles etc, the same way all I can remember from Return to Which Mountain is that people get levitated in it and all I can recall from the Sea Gypsies is that they get attacked by a bear (?) after being shipwrecked.

reply

euhh, ya know, suspend disbelief, it's not a documentary.

If everyone has to abide by how realistic a movie is? Then why not pick on the Wizard Of Oz? For starters, Dorothy's house is blown away in the tornado, yet she wakes up in it back in Kansas. Sure, it might have all been a dream, does that explain why wearing ruby slippers don't shatter under the weight of her body when she walks, runs and dances in them? They are made of glass for heavens sake. Then there is the reasons her new friends join her on the adventure down the yellow brick road. The Scarcrow wants a brain, yet he thinks to hand Dorothy a bucket of water to put out the fire that causes the witch to melt. The Tin Man wants a heart, yet looks a little out of breath after some of the musical numbers, and the lion wants courage, you know, the thing that he probably needed to make his ferocious first appearance, even if it was pretending to have courage.

So... as you can see, Condorman is not the first, nor far from the last movie to clearly state ITS A FRICKEN MOVIE not a documentary.

I bet you clowns love Harry Potter too.... don't even get me started on that dork who increases his XP each sequel.

reply

Why? Because the basic premise should have been good for a movie, especially a kid's movie. How was that Disney bought the rights and made a film. The problem is that Disney was in pretty sad shape in this era, and its movies weren't doing that well. The future of the film studio was in jeapordy, even on the animation front.

Disney didn't exactly spend big money on their live action films, so they tended to keep them rather simple, without anything that required elaborate special effects (even Escape from Witch Mountain was largely wire effects and process shots). However, in a period were big budget special effects-laden films were hits, Disney looked like old hat. It had been quite a while since they had a bona fide live action hit. They tried to jump on the sci-fi bandwagon, with The Black Hole, but it didn't make a very large profit, so they tried to split the difference. The Bond films were popular so why not try one for kids? The problem is that the stunts didn't have the budget to rival Bond, so they look mostly like stuff you could see on tv. The budget also didn't stretch to a big name actor, so you got Michael Crawford, while Oliver Reed had burned so many bridges even a Disney film looked good. The end result is an enjoyable piece of fluff for the very young crowd and something that adults could at least sit through. However, with more exciting pictures out there, the audience didn't exactly turn out in droves.

The biggest problem was that Disney had largely been writing down to their audience in their live films, which made them less and less engaging and they earned less and less money. The result was each subsequent film had a lower budget than the one before and they became self fulfilling prophecies.

Fortunately, Ah keep mah feathers numbered for just such an emergency!

reply