MovieChat Forums > Pete's Dragon (1977) Discussion > Forgetable music, dull performances, lau...

Forgetable music, dull performances, laughable animation

posted 10 years ago by kiga-1
15 replies | jump to latest

Where to start on this total mess?

The dragon animation is so laughably bad, the movie looks like a bad Dickens story crossed with a 70s children's commercial. The studio wanted to save a bundle, so instead of investing money in a live, lovable dragon, they held their noses and tried passing off this farce to unsuspecting children.

Helen Reddy and the kids are not exactly charismatic nor lovable, the only true performance coming from bad-guy Jim Dale.

The banal lyrics to the forgettable music will make you cringe in your seat ("Brazzle-Dazzle Day????", "Money, Money, Money All Around?????")

Do your kids a favor and whip out Mary Poppins or Aladdin, this inexcusable hybrid should never have been made.

If your kid loves it....check their IQ...and yours.

[–] Leoneswest 10 years ago

So you ummmm....didn't like the film?

[–] kiga-1 10 years ago

You are an absolute genius.

[–] ldlamb74 8 years ago

Did you imply they could have used a "live" dragon.......neat.

[–] Moonlighty 8 years ago

Did you imply they could have used a "live" dragon.......neat.



-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

[–] oprlvr33 9 years ago

Well I am an absolute genius also - -
And who happens to greatly adore this animation musical classic. Forgettable music? Not likely.

Candle on the Water, Bill 'O Sale, Money-All Around, I Swear I Saw a Dragon ... amongst the varied others, all were immensely enjoyable. So darned enjoyable and lively, that our community theater was granted the rights to produce the stage version, several years back. Audiences cheered over this Helen Reddy/Mickey Rooney musical classic (esp. Elliott, who almost stole the show)

So, no - we did not consider this musical classic a 'total mess'

And a live - lovable dragon??? Really??? If you want that, than watch Dragonslayer, or better yet, Dragonheart. This is a fantasy animated children's musical - not a CGI adult fantasy/horror film.

This is a classic Disney animation, not a modern, sophisticated Pixar. Major difference. And Mary Poppins was not all that better, nor different than this film. Some of that animation was downright silly to par, but the film overall was still enjoyable. And no bias simply because it starred Julie Andrews.

And agreeably, Jim Dale and Shelley Winters gave the best top comical performances.

Peanutlee33

[–] sinceimetjc 8 years ago

I was born in 1981, so it's a little before my time. But it seemed like this movie was shown every year in elementary school. I remember watching it a few times, but I can't remember much about it! So, I kind of agree with the OP. Maybe it's a good movie, but it didn't keep my interest.I'm willing to watch it again though. And show it to my kids.

"The hideousness of that foot will haunt my dreams forever."

[–] ConsciencePending 8 years ago

It sounds like this OP, and many like them has a political agenda against this movie. The song that Helen Reddy sings with all the children (There's Room for Everyone in this World) has the word God in it. But in a very positive light. However this would piss an atheist off in a heartbeat.

BTW, I've heard SO many times that this film flopped (Actually made a little profit) and no one realizes that the timing of this film was after the release of STAR WARS! You know, the little movie that caused every studio to have a few space themed movies out there? If P.D. had just came out a year earlier, it would have been a hit.

P.S. Disney went dark on their themes going into the 80's. "Something Wicked This Way Comes" "The Watcher in the Woods", etc.

[–] 3s2m 8 years ago

It made money, it just didn't make MP-sized money, and the studio has been passive-aggressively holding it against them ever since. Disney was unrealistic if they thought that huge (and IMO undeserved) level of popularity was going to happen again, especially after the post-1960s New Hollywood backlash against musicals, but without it, the studio would have given up on musicals altogether. Most of those post-Pete's Dragon, pre-Eisner dark movies weren't big hits, either, but then again neither were three of Walt's first five animated features. Neither were The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, and It's A Wonderful Life. When it came out, the other big studio releases were Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Saturday Night Fever.

I don't think it's politics per se; Disney's always tried to play off both sides of the aisle, and the cast was a mix of Jews and Christians, liberals and conservatives. They simply believed them to be the best people for the job who would actually work for Disney. Not everyone agreed with them. As for the God thing, I actually read Helen Reddy's biography; she became an atheist at 13 and converted to Judaism at some point during her marriage to her manager Jeff Wald, so she didn't seem to have a problem with the words "prayer" and "god" in the song. The message I got from this film is that you should not believe in things until you actually see them. Just like Nora didn't believe Elliott was real until she actually saw him outside the lighthouse, and just like everyone who bought Dr. Terminus's medicines got screwed over because they bought into it because of the fake "proof" of Hoagy in disguise (showing how proof can also be faked). That's one of many reasons why I object to the glib, reductive, disingenuous MP comparisons, not just because the film is so much more than that, but because if that's that game, you could just as well draw comparisons to several other films as well, and you can't let MP off the hook for the same, either. Frankly, Disney's been copying others and themselves for years, and it pisses me off that this film and Bedknobs and Broomsticks take flack for it while others get off the hook. And at least under Ron Miller they could make their films nominally different from their Walt-era predecessors; under Robert Iger and Alan Horn, they can't even manage that.

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

It made money, it just didn't make MP-sized money, and the studio has been passive-aggressively holding it against them ever since. Disney was unrealistic...
___________________
Yes, from a 77' budget of $10mill, it made 40mill in the US alone. That's not bad for a family\kiddi flick that they did spend a fair amount on, and there would have been international box office to add to this which got a condensed and tightened up 105min version in the hope of improving the film by word of mouth. No doubt they could squeeze more sessions in too. Disney were being greedy and like you have mentioned "unrealistic".

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

[–] 3s2m 7 years ago

I can't watch any of the short versions. From the foreign-language versions of songs, I saw what they did to the musical numbers and it absolutely broke my heart. All they needed to do was make a few minor cuts for pacing and fix a few shots, but instead they hacked it to bits, just like they did to the three other musicals that came before it. I will never forgive them until everything that was cut was restored and it hasn't been.

[–] mswanberg-72405 8 years ago

Even though God is mentioned several times it's never Christian based. Other religions believe in God too.

[–] fireivygoddess-416-683112 8 years ago

I was born in '85 and adored this movie! I distinctly remember wanting an Elliot of my own when I was little. Really couldn't disagree more with the OP on the music- Brazzle Dazzle Day in particular gets stuck in my head at least once a month for really no reason, which sends me down the YouTube spiral of searching for every song in the soundtrack. It really boils down to different strokes for different folks. As an adult now though, I still love the film- especially for its dated-ness and corniness.

There is something wonderfully nostalgic about it and some really wonderful performances. Helen Reddy in this film really warms my heart. As a kid, I remember always having the feeling that Nora could do or fix anything.

[–] ItzThaTruth 8 years ago

What's the matter? Your uncle made you watch it while it diddled your doodle??

[–] rascal67 8 years ago

What do you mean a "live" lovable dragon? How would they have done a "live" dragon and made it look feasible? It was meant to be animated and Disney was impressed with the animation already done for Elliot, that they gave him more screen time.

I recall the songs because I have seen the film several times and I don't find anything cringe worthy about them. I find them rather catchy and memorable, but that's just me. The kid who plays Pete was a bit bland and self-conscious as an actor, but passable. Reddy was fine for the sweet Nora and she CAN sing and gave the songs some class.

I agree though, that the best performance in the film was from Jim Dale. He was terrific, but Rooney, Buttons and Winters weren't far behind him. I would watch this any day over Mary Poopins. You also sound like a snob and I think your IQ is average.

Don't eat the whole ones! Those are for the guests. 🍪

[–] IMDB_Vits 8 years ago

ALADDIN: 9/10
MARY POPPINS: 8/10
PETE'S DRAGON: 3/10