http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0200208/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

"The Thirteenth Year"

On this 13th birthday, Cody doesn't just hit puberty - he starts growing scales and fins, and eventually, a tail.

Cody is adopted, and his birth mother is a Mermaid. Sound like a premise for a movie? I thought not.

Unless you're 8 years old, or want to see teenage boys in speedos, this is not a movie to see.

The plot is ridiculous, and ridden with holes. Why did MerMom abandon her baby? Will they all live happily ever after?

We never find out.

So, what other Disney movies have you have the unfortunate experience of seeing?

You could say that about every non-animated film to come out of Disney in the entire last 10 years. Their animation department has been experiencing an amazing resurgence since 2008, but by God, their live-action division sucks. Is this really the same studio that produced "Mary Poppins," "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea," and "Old Yeller?"

Well if you have merman fetishes like I do, this is an OK movie.

But yes, it is definately "from hunger" as they say.

Let us be clear; The great Disney films, the ones we remember and cite were made when Walt Disney was living. Michael Eisner is no Walt Disney but he does know how to turn a buck. Even Walt had his mis-steps, Dumbo and the scenes of the mother elephant being torn from her child are chilling and disturbing. (In some ways, Bambi causes trauma as well.) Interestingly, the greatest of his films, arguably Fantasia, was not a success until it gained a "cult" following.

Reading the synopsis of The Thirteenth Year assures me I'll never see it but it's the sort of film that shows up on airplanes at grim moments. Also, the "lead" kid's parents must have either been from Seattle or fans of Star Wars-esque films. Chez Starbucks? That's not a name, that's an animated character strung out on caffeine. Apparently this staring role was the height of young master Starbuck's fame; the next year (2000) he was assigned the role of "Tan Jock" in another bit of Disney filming. Also rightly or wrongly-and I can make a strong case for the latter-this was made specifically for showing on the Disney Channel.(Which may answer Paolo's speculation as to who wants to see 13 year old boys in Speedos, it's 13 year old girls. ) In retrospect, the plot here makes Michael J. Fox turning into a Werewolf on the basketball court seem almost relevant....wait....wasn't that another Disney prodution?

Snow White and Cinderella were masterpieces...Walt Disney was a truly remarkable man...They're still today, perhaps the best ever made....Jackie

considering (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 13, 2013 4:13 am Let us be clear; The great Disney films, the ones we remember and cite were made when Walt Disney was living. Michael Eisner is no Walt Disney but he does know how to turn a buck. Even Walt had his mis-steps, Dumbo and the scenes of the mother elephant being torn from her child are chilling and disturbing. (In some ways, Bambi causes trauma as well.) Interestingly, the greatest of his films, arguably Fantasia, was not a success until it gained a "cult" following.

Reading the synopsis of The Thirteenth Year assures me I'll never see it but it's the sort of film that shows up on airplanes at grim moments. Also, the "lead" kid's parents must have either been from Seattle or fans of Star Wars-esque films. Chez Starbucks? That's not a name, that's an animated character strung out on caffeine. Apparently this staring role was the height of young master Starbuck's fame; the next year (2000) he was assigned the role of "Tan Jock" in another bit of Disney filming. Also rightly or wrongly-and I can make a strong case for the latter-this was made specifically for showing on the Disney Channel.(Which may answer Paolo's speculation as to who wants to see 13 year old boys in Speedos, it's 13 year old girls. ) In retrospect, the plot here makes Michael J. Fox turning into a Werewolf on the basketball court seem almost relevant....wait....wasn't that another Disney prodution?

Well, to be fair, there was an AMAZING Disney animation renaissance in the late 80's and all throughout the 90's that took place under Michael Eisner and Jeffery Katzenberg. That was the era that produced "The Little Mermaid," "Beauty and the Beast," and "The Lion King." And although the animation department REALLY started sucking in the early-2000's with films like "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little," the Bob Iger era (which saw the hiring of the Pixar executives to take over the animation department,) has thus far produced some really excellent animated films with "Tangled" and "Wreck-it Ralph." So the animation department has proven that it can indeed survive without Walt. (Seriously, if you've never seen those newer animated films that Disney has been coming out with for the last 4 years or so, give them a watch. "Tangled" and "Wreck-it Ralph" are both really good! And "Bolt" and "The Princess and the Frog" are pretty darn good too!) I really think it's just the live-action department that still sucks.

(I'm a total Disney animation nerd, by the way, in case anyone hasn't noticed yet...)

Disney does have some great movies. You need to pick up dvd's of them whenever they put them back out on sale. On another note, I enjoyed The Thirteenth Year. Maybe it's because it was a "Clean" movie dialogue wise. Premise is farfetched but isn't that what fiction (Sci/Fi) movies are about. Personally I do not like the Dark Knight (Batman) movies. Not Disney but they are too farfetched for me as well as violent. But, we live in a violent world today.

cheetaking243 (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:17 am Well, to be fair, there was an AMAZING Disney animation renaissance in the late 80's and all throughout the 90's that took place under Michael Eisner and Jeffery Katzenberg. That was the era that produced "The Little Mermaid," "Beauty and the Beast," and "The Lion King." And although the animation department REALLY started sucking in the early-2000's with films like "Home on the Range" and "Chicken Little," the Bob Iger era (which saw the hiring of the Pixar executives to take over the animation department,) has thus far produced some really excellent animated films with "Tangled" and "Wreck-it Ralph." So the animation department has proven that it can indeed survive without Walt. (Seriously, if you've never seen those newer animated films that Disney has been coming out with for the last 4 years or so, give them a watch. "Tangled" and "Wreck-it Ralph" are both really good! And "Bolt" and "The Princess and the Frog" are pretty darn good too!) I really think it's just the live-action department that still sucks.

(I'm a total Disney animation nerd, by the way, in case anyone hasn't noticed yet...)

It's interesting to speculate that there must be quite an age difference between us. The films you cite are all with in the past two or three decades while the ones I remember date from the 30's, 40's and 50's. I saw part of the much vaunted "Lion King" on an airplane and found it silly, the tunes nasal and the animation very flat. As to the others, a good cartoon is still amusing and diverting and perhaps some of those are. The discussion here revolves around a truly revolting idea for a live action/animated made for television movie that is sometimes described as being of the "What if..." variety. What if a kid wakes up and finds he's been magically transformed into a stack of storm doors and can't get back. What if a kid finds his best friend is an alien and always carries a towel and book with friendly letters....sorry, that's been done. What if a kid discovers a unicorn breeding stable is disguised as a renegade McDonalds. Disney used to do live action fantasy quite well (I cannot remember the most amusing picture in which Jody Foster and Barbara Harris switched bodies...) but issues of genuine wit and humour will always take the back seat to the bottom line. I think to be fair, I need to see their contemporary television and film department as separate entities from the genuine animations they did and still do. But let me get in an atta boy for the best animated cartoons ever, those from Warner Brothers. Disney never made a cartoon as genuinely funny as did Warners. What I think we might all agree on is that what is ladled out to the young as "entertainment" is more diversion and puffery. They seem to be determined to produce a parallel hierarchy for kids as exists for adults complete with stars, films, dating, break ups, all of it. I asked a young friend what I might get her daughter-age 12-as a gift for Christmas. I was told "Tiger Beat". I thought, how nice, the child has an interest in saving animals on the endangered species list. And then I found it's a rag magazine devoted to young stars and their doins'.

To answer a question, the reason we don't have "Mary Poppins" is that fewer books are published that become source material. The Hobbit has, apparently, been worked to death and children do not respond positively to things based on what might be called "Great Bible Stories Every Child Knows". The "kid lit" that we see are a juvenile version of romance novels or how to prepare your young daughter for a sexual experience. Based on what I read, they don't seem to need books for that. And, face it, children have been conned out of their youth by merchandisers who will sell them the trappings of "middle age" (20) when they're eleven or twelve.

Sorry, I wandered on this one. Maybe if I had my nuts back I'd feel differently. But I don't think so.

considering (imported) wrote: Sun Jan 13, 2013 9:34 am It's interesting to speculate that there must be quite an age difference between us. The films you cite are all with in the past two or three decades while the ones I remember date from the 30's, 40's and 50's.

Yeah... I'm 27 years old. So I was the same age when "Beauty and the Beast" came out as you were when "Cinderella" came out.

Back on topic:

I haven't seen many Disney live-action movies recently because I know they're terrible, but I did have the misfortune of seeing a lot of their garbage from the late-90's before I was old enough to know better... like the remake of "That Darn Cat," the TERRIBLE sequel to "Homeward Bound," "Homeward Bound 2: Lost in San Francisco," the god-awful "RocketMan," and one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life... the live-action film version of "Inspector Gadget." Disney had been going downhill for a long time before that, but they just went completely off their rockers in the mid-late 90's. And now... God... I just feel insulted living in a universe where films like "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" and "G-Force" not only got theatrical releases, the first one actually got a sequel. *BARF*.

You know I think Disney has made more films than just about any studio and some have been real bombs, like all studio's, some have been masterpieces. On a whole the Disney label did take a turn for the worse when a Disney was not at the helm, that has been corrected.

They are still worth the look as they make more good ones then bad ones.

River