*Correction: "Signs" was actually Shyamalan's 5th (!) overall feature... and his 4th for the Disney company (including "Wide Awake" in 1998 for Miramax and "Unbreakable" in 2000 for Touchstone)
Another correction is that New Line Cinema was still its own separately run entity from Warner Bros. under Time-Warner until 2008. Thus, Warner Bros had no involvement in the development or production of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. That was all New Line, on their own, under the leadership of NLC founder Robert Shaye.
Still find it funny how The Nightmare Before Christmas was released as a touchstone film, but as soon as it became a cult classic (and thus more merchandisable) Disney reclaimed it
The first trailer for "National Treasure" indicated it was a Touchstone release. But when the MPAA gave the film a PG rating prior to opening, it suddenly became an official Walt Disney title.
Its funny now how after the Hulu merger, Disney+ has all the typical kids classics alongside things like The Omen and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Here in Latin America Disney+ only has kid-friendly content, plus all of the Star Wars and Marvel ones, the more mature films and shows are available on a separate service called Star+, though they're meant to merge this month. Still, I was kind of surprised to see some Touchstone films like Splash in Disney+
I’m still confused why the revived touchstone television was so short-lived… But yeah, touchstone deserves to be remembered, same goes for hollywood (disney’s other movie company).
Disney in the 80's: Let's create a label under Disney so that we can create pictures with more nudity, oriented to a more adult audience. Disney+ upon launch: Let's put Splash on and censor the hell out it. Replace shots so there are no more nipples, crop shots to hide her behind and cover it up with digital hair. To think Touchstone was founded for content like Splash and then censor it decades later is quite ironic and ridiculous. Thank god it has since been restored to it's original glory in 4K. (streaming only) These films need more love and respect in the form of 4k restorations and proper home media releases. They have the potential to shine and sell on the 4k UHD format.
That's the Disney way though they always wanted the adult content crowd but never willing to actually show anything adult themed. It was all family content all the time. I saw a lot of their films but not many in the theater even as a kid. Doesn't surprise me one bit they are censoring Splash they are not allow to show a straight couple holding hands let alone kissing in any production now because it isn't gay. Doesn't fit the message.
@@dnasty312 Granted that has a lot to do with the erosion of ownership and shift to subscription models. Why sell you a movie once when we can bill you for the same or nearly the same price _every month?_
It's wild to me that some rich dude can just buy enough stock in a company to say, "Okay. Liquidate everything. Shut everything down. You're all fired." Even crazier that it almost happened to Disney.
if that wasn't true, then publicly listed companies wouldn't actually be owned by the shareholders (even though most shareholders don't buy stock for that purpose).
If culture is America's greatest export then you'd think there'd be more consideration for and protection of the industry. Still a problem today with the shrinking number of distribution companies.
Happens all the time - it's what private equity does. Toys R Us, Sears, Red Lobster are all famous examples. But they don't just liquidate, first they make the company take on a ton of debt which they pull out in some form or another (like bonuses). THEN they send the company through bankruptcy.
Touchstone would be EXACTLY what Disney, or actually all Hollywood, desperately needs. Relatively cheaply made original productions, where it would be possible to actually strike gold. Not every movie of course, but if you can make 10+ of those for the price of a single Marvel-movie, you only need a hit once in a while to stay afloat. And since those other movies would generate some profit also, the hits would actually make it shine instead of just survive.
Bingo, this is EXACTLY it. It doesn’t matter if every movie is a hit or not if the company can keep production costs low enough in the first place, and that’s impossible with giant blockbusters from existing franchises. It’s getting ridiculous now reading about movies pulling in 100 million and still being referred to as a “failure”. Going back to the 80’s and 90’s, a small or mid-budget film could gross 20-40 million and be considered a success. Not to mention that when all Hollywood wants to do is focus on franchises, that means any and all creativity and originality goes out the window.
That's basically what A24 is. Though they focused almost 100% on dramas until recently, their massive success with Everything Everywhere All at Once seems to have galvanized them to move into other genres and more mainstream than pure art house. Multiple Oscars and their highest grossing film ever. Though the take is still small, 143 mill but on a budget of 25 mill. Most of their stuff has profits way lower. Risky business doesn't take many flops to sink the company.
@@steverogers8163 Yeah. A24 is the modern day Touchstone basically. And heck even like Touchstone, A24 is also branching out a bit with other production methods like animation. Heck they just released the animated series "Hazbin Hotel", their first ever animated production, on prime video half a year ago to huge critical and financial success. Things are going well for that little studio and their ventures.
It's still so weird to me to see Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet being brought up as failures despite the fact that all three of those movies are absolutely beloved today. Though with the latter two it's understandable considering that Eisner was intentionally torpedo-ing the animation wing at Disney.
It's because the only metrics that the companies care about is box office sales. A great example is the game cube. Commercially it was a huge flop because the company barely made any money off the sales of the system and games. However it's a very popular system that produced many games people loved. Same with the Wii, Commercially it didn't make the company much money yet in the zidgist of our culture its remembered well
@@Shadowtiger2564the Nintendo Wii was gangbusters for the company, which is why they hesitated to innovate away from it in the first place. The switch design was first half assed with the release of the Wii U. The Wii was extremely popular and highly profitable per console sold.
By the time Disney started making attractions using star wars I felt that they already had the franchise in their hands. I got a little weirded out when they decided to make new star wars films, but i gave it a chance... And hated it. Disney star wars isn't star wars. 🤷🏻♂️
@@LinkMarioSamus Which they still haven't managed to do while they make all sorts of new mistakes. I've never been a fan and see the original trilogy the same way I do KISS - great _for its time_ - but even I feel bad for fans old enough to know a time before Disney-ification. I've watched my own beloved franchises be gutted for "modern audiences/preferences" in whatever capacity that means, like Final Fantasy becoming just another ADHD third person action game. It's like watching an old friend descend into chemical madness. And when you question, it's made abundantly clear it's fueled by huffing their own farts.
8:52 "[Eisner's] corporate philosophy was that companies had to take chances and innovate to succeed." Precisely the two concepts that Disney no longer espouses.
It's worth noting that Eisner himself had abandoned that philosophy once Disney became bigger and more profitable (i.e., trying to cancel the first Pirates film due to its high budget). It was probably easier to take risks when there was nothing to lose... but once the company became a huge conglomerate, executives tend to avoid any choices that might rock the boat. Unfortunately this is a common trend in entertainment companies that become hugely successful.
Walt watching To Kill a Mockingbird: "I need to make important pictures under a different brandname." Touchstone Pictures: "OK we gotta movie about a Reno lounge singer who witnessed a murdere and needs to go undercover as...wait...a nun in San Francisco!"
How different the 80's were. If you wanted to start a mid budget label for original stand alone adult films today, you would be laughed out of Hollywood. I miss that era. The Touchstone jingle was the sound of my childhood.
I do miss Touchstone a lot, especially now that modern Disney in general feels lost when it comes to their output. Barely anything comes out of 20th Studios that isn’t a franchise, and if they didn’t have so many Oscar hits like Nomadland and Poor Things, Searchlight would’ve definitely been on the chopping block. It’s so annoying that Disney keeps refusing to make real movies, instead this constant churn of IP based movies that feel void of personality and creativity. Something like Unbreakable or The Insider would never be greenlit by them today.
Unbreakable, what a good movie from Shayamalan, not a usual superhero movie, I liked Split but I've heard it was awful. 100% agree with you, I want to see them doing something original again.
Yeah. If anything one needs to look elsewhere for new original movie and TV productions that dare to give up and coming storytellers a shot with more vivid ideas. The best place for that these days is probably the studio A24, who by now are probably most well known for the movie "Everything, Everywhere, All at once" and the Animated TV series "Hazbin Hotel".
Who Framed Roger Rabbit was one of the most innovative and best films that Disney/Touchstone Pictures created. I've watched it many times over the years, and it amazes me how creative and great it still is. The blend of 2D-animated characters and living humans still hold up, and its messages about prejudice and overcoming it is strong and still resonate to this day. They didn't hammer anything or alienate audiences to get their point across, they had a neat innovative world where humans and cartoon characters coexisted, they had a great script and great characters, a flawed but relatable human protagonist whose cynical personality bounced off their less serious and more silly cartoon deuteragonist, they had a strong iconic female character, a terrifying villain, great music, and it became the best live-action/2D-animation hybrid film of all time and renewed the Disney Renaissance. It sucks that current Disney refuses to acknowledge its existence and its cultural significance, though I guess that's also kind of a good thing, since acknowledging its existence would probably give it the "live-action" remake treatment. What's worse is the knowledge that we know WFRR would not have been made today, which shows just how low Disney has become. The studio has become a shell of its former self and an example of how low empires can fall. R.I.P Touchstone Pictures.
@@nalleinsowilo6268and what movie are you saying was good? Going by your logic McDonald's is the highest quality food out there because they made a lot of money off it.
I remember Roger Rabbit being a BIG deal back in the day. That was a pretty darn good movie though. I love it more now than I did as a kid because I see how much effort and care were put into it.
This is my first time watching your content. Touchstone was such an important part of my childhood as an 80s kid! This was an amazing little history lesson. I kept wondering "When is he going to mention" and you mentioned all of them that I could think of!! I totally liked it and subscribed!
Fun fact about The Black Hole, it was released on a same day as "Star Trek The Motion Picture", guess which was more popular? Reminds me of the story of how Alfred Hitchcock wanted to film a movie at Disney World and this was right after "Psycho" and Walt reportedly said "I don't want that filth in my park!"
I was a kid in the 4th grade that year and remember vividly the advertising on television and movie posters on buses and the subways. My friends and I were very excited about The Black Hole, but something about that first Star Trek picture made everyone think it would be dreary and boring. By the early '80s- Sci-Fi was more about "action" and less about "philosophy" re 2001 Space Odyssey.
For what it's worth, Eisner wasn't entirely to blame for refusing Lord of the Rings. It was actually the Weinsteins negotiating, as Miramax held the rights. What Eisner did refuse was Peter Jackson's request to film two consecutive films back to back, especially on such a high risk project. It was believed that Harvey Weinstein even suggested simply cutting the two films into one (which obviously would've gone badly). While Jackson did respond by fucking off when Robert Shaye decided New Line Cinema would do *the entire trilogy at once,* Miramax, and thus Disney, did negotiate a deal where they got a 5% cut of all LOtR profits, and Harvey and Bob Weinstein would still receive executive producer credits.
It would be funny if Weinstein wanted the two LOTR films merged into one (I wish they came to this agreement with The Hobbit), when he suggested Quentin Tarantino to cut Kill Bill into two films.
You know for a guy who liked his literature, it's quite bizzare that Eisner wasn't keen on splitting the adaptation of LOTR into two parts. And I don't blame Jackson for insisting on filming it back-to-back, especially when Ralph Bakshi got screwed when his backers refused to fund part 2 of his adaptation.
I think it was more the idea of spending so much money on something that wasn't a surefire bet for success was not something he wanted Disney to risk- and you could hardly blame him, most fantasies or adaptations that attempted to shoehorn fantasies in them failed and failed *miserably,* before AND after its release. And that Bakshi adaptation wasn't exactly the best first impression for film execs.
@@erics.czernecki7333 I get that Eisner didn't want to spend $150 Million on a Two-Part Fantasy Film by a director that was quite unknown in Hollywood at the time. However, he would likely known how popular The Lord of Rings Trilogy was compared to most fantasy novels and thus it's potential as a successful movie compared to most fantasy films. Heck, the Bakshi Adaptation (despite being half an adaptation & quite rushed in telling it's plot) was quite profitable at the box office. Funny enough; Eisner would later blame Harvey Weinstein's refusal to share details (about the project) for turning down the film in the first place. Honestly though, both deserve blame for Disney basically gifting the project to New Line Cinema.
It’s interesting to look back at certain film and television studios that were once big, but are now gone. Seeing a film with the Touchstone logo is something that I remember quite a bit when I grew up in the 90s. It’s unfortunate it’s gone, but also not surprising either.
One would think that 20th Century Studios and Searchlight Pictures should become the spiritual succesors of Touchstone, but it seems we only had glimpses of it with things like The Creator, in terms of original stuff. And for some reason they dropped distribution of The Bikeriders, which is now in the hands of Focus Features. Fortunately seems that Searchlight is in a good place with the success of Poor Things, and it seems that Yorgos next film could repeat the sucess.
The real reason they pulled off of Disney releasing the movie was because New Regency’s prior movie The Creator actually bombed at the worldwide box office, along with the dreaded SAG union strikes still taking shape then.
Sidetrack I know: I remember Bob Hoskins saying after Roger Rabbit that he needed to take a break from acting and get his head straight as so many months talking to characters that were not there IRL had done a number on him and he was talking to imaginary things outside work. I mean nowadays acting to things that aren't even there is kind of the norm.
While Disney might have made an unthinkable amount of money from its big franchises in recent years I feel like the cinema ecosystem needs labels like Touchstone, banging out original (if not always hugely profitable) films and investing in talent. It feels like the well of big budget franchise hits was always going to run dry eventually. They have nothing to fall back on.
I agree with you. It's a really strange time as there is a massive oversaturation of content. It's just too much, which causes little to truly be excited about. It's much less about quality then it is about using IP's to sustain subscription numbers at this point.
This was a fantastic retrospective and I’m already glad to have started watching your videos. I’m a new subscriber and this video helped me feel very good today because of all the wonderful memories I have of Touchstone movies! Thank you and well done. I will never forget so many of these incredible movies and the Tv shows like Boy Meets World and home Improvement. Lots of incredible memories. I will certainly always be thankful to Touchstone. Looking forward to seeing more of your content!
Disney tested the waters with the PG rating by releasing a movie called "Takedown" that starred Lorenzo Lamas and was about a high school wrestler. It was released prior to "The Black Hole" and was not produced by Walt Disney Studios but was released by their distribution arm Buena Vista Distribution.
Disney doesn't get enough credit for giving talented directors the free reign to make their wild passion project through Touchstone. It's unlikely we would have gotten to see movies like O Brother Where Art Thou?, Ed Wood, Apocalypto, Starship Troopers, or The Prestige without them. Great video!
And nightmare before christmas, no? At least from what I remember reading at the time, Tim Burton was just starting his career after working at Disney for a while... But I could be wrong.
I never thought of Touchstone as a division of Disney or as an individual studio worth seeking out. It was just another company logo before the movie started.
Yep. That was the idea and they should have stuck to that. Now we got so much mud in the water on what is and isn't meant for families from Disney that the brand has no meaning other than cashed in, preachy remakes and sequels.
Yep no one gives a shit what studio puts out what movie, they just care if its good or not. When people see a movie they almost never even know who the studio was
@@suspensesmith that's why I don't care how much money *Inside Out 2* makes. They are still relying on sequels and remakes to pull them out of a whole created by too many sequels and remakes.
The Wells Eisner Katzeberg trio mid 80s to mid 90s era of Disney is my favorite in the company's history. Look at what was made, the sky was the limit. RIP Frank, you were the glue 😔
That part of Disney was central to my childhood memories of movie going and renting VHS's from that time growing up. Mid-90s, things felt different or the cares for the renaissance was over or shifting to completing with Pixar on the 3D market. Either way, my love for this company long term was going to be challenged into the 2000s.
That Robin Williams joke about Michael Eisner hanging out at the Betty Ford Clinic made laugh out loud. 😂 I totally forgot how notorious he was about hiring actors at their low points.
It was always a Disney tradition to hire people who were either on the way up or on the way down if they didn't build them from the ground up themselves.
I literally went decades without nightmares from seeing Watcher in the Woods when I was 8, and now you’ve gone and brought it up again! For crying out loud!
It seems like the kind of label that could make a return someday, especially if Marvel and Star Wars productions continue to under perform. The first Touchstone movie I ever saw was Ernest Goes to Camp. So I have always associated their logo and musical motif with that movie.
I would imagine that Disney probably sees it that way. Now that Fox Searchlight is under their ownership, they likely see no need to have another "indie" studio like Touchstone. But unfortunately, due to all the mergers and buyouts as of late, that means there are less distributors releasing smaller films overall.
Absolutely good video. Came in my recomendations and I've greatly enjoyed it how nicely written it was, but mostly all the visual aid, in the form of videos of the era, logos, posters, etc. Another suscriber.
Well, considering Disney bought out 20th Century Fox, why bother having just a little branding like Touchstone Pictures, when you now own an even bigger name where you can release non-family movies. Although, Disney doesn't seem to be sure what to do with Fox, and only now are they starting to make proper use of it, what with the huge success of Avatar: The Way of Water, and of course the upcoming Deadpool and Wolverine, which will be their first R-rated picture in the MCU. So, it looks like 20th Century Fox will basically become the new Touchstone Pictures for Disney
@@hipsterelephant2660 The issue is Iger's greed and arrogance. It feels like he wanted Fox just so he could get access to their massive library. He didn't seem to have any intentions of using it like Touchstone. And that's why I refuse to invest in any Disney stock. They need to fire Iger.
yeah but not a massive success. only 2x profits and #2 that year for the Buena Vista arm. Though I can easily imagine it made a ton more on the VHS/Cable TV market afterwards. Apparently there was/is a lawsuit about the profits from the movie.
This is a very solid video. As a "tween" in the 80s I remember just what a glut of mid-range movies Touchstone released (and a little later Hollywood Pictures, its sister company). This sort of film isn't really made any more.
This may sound weird or funny 😅 but as a movie geek kid in the ‘80s, Touchstone Pictures was my favorite studio. I loved their movies and always hoped to one day work with them. And we didn’t have Showtime - our cable carrier only had HBO and Cinemax, and it bummed me out that Touchstone releases only played on Showtime back then! 😆 Finally, thanks for the explanation of the name’s meaning. I thought it was for some reason named after the character from Shakespeare’s “As You Like It.”
It's weird that 20th Century Fox, a major studio and competitor to Disney has now become the successor to Touchstone Pictures. It's also funny that movies like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which was released under the Touchstone label because it was PG-13 are now on Disney Plus and would be released today under the Walt Disney Studios banner.
Happy 40th anniversary to Touchstone Pictures, which was introduced on February 15th, 1984. On behalf of myself, thank you, Touchstone Pictures, for saving the Disney Company and helping shape up Disney to what it is today.
Great video..👍 I was 19 in 1984 , and a serious once-a-week moviegoer for many years after that, so much so we simply got used to seeing the Touchstone Pictures logo a few times a month for years...😁
Dude I was so happy when I realized Disney produced Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. Finally, my love of Disney and my love of Wes Anderson have intersected.
You could argue that Disney are in a creative rut and face challenges making Streaming Profitable. However Disney itself ain't losing money as a whole, especially when their profits were $2.3 Billion in 2023. Likewise, apart from Amazon & Apple, virtually nobody could launch a full buyout of Disney itself. Which wasn't the case in the Mid-80s.
@@nalleinsowilo6268 they lost 2 billion on D+ alone, over a billion on 2 movie, wish and the marvels, their stock is constantly declining m, and universal studios outperformed Disney world for the first time ever. Their adherence to “the message” is bringing their downfall.
@@jamespohl-md2eq yes, losses. It’s losing billions each quarter on D+, universal studios has overtaken Disney world as the most popular theme park and they lost over a billion on just 2 movies last year alone, not to mention they’re about to lose at least half a billion on the fake captain America movie coming out later this year. Inside out 2 and Deadpool will be their only financial successes this year. Everything else will be massive losses.
"He's not around to tell us, so it's really kind of counterproductive to wonder what he might have done." This is how we should approach our relationships with historical figures generally.
Interesting to see that Disney was in a very similar position in the 80s that they are now, with all of their new movies flopping hard, and people generally thinking that they aren't capable of making anything good anymore.
@@John_Locke_108Well, they bought Pixar in 2006 for a good reason, but even back in the 70s, 80s and 2000s, Disney had gems that grew on a lot of people's hearts.
My childhood was the late 1970s/early '80s and among my friends Disney was considered for toddlers. You would be ridiculed for having a Walt Disney lunchbox or Mickey Mouse on your clothes. Hanna Barbera and Warner bros. IP were considered more "edgy" among us 4th graders! LOL
I re-watched a couple of 80s Touchstone films. They play like TV movies with a bit of adult content. Still, would prefer that to another superhero movie loaded with CGI.
I honestly think that was their off ramp since the 80s was when cable TV became a mainstream option. If the movie sucked to much for theaters they could offload it onto cable TV to try and brake even. The rise of VHS becoming a 3rd option too. I've heard multiple directors/actors saying in interviews that they made movies relying entirely on the idea they would see profits from the VHS end of things and not the theatrical run. Both these options ended up spawning cult sleeper hits like "Shawshank Redemption" which bombed at the box office but VHS turned it into a movie classic, it was the #1 movie rental that year and is apparently still one of WB's most valuable titles for licensing.
1980s : Wanting to make new, innovative movies with under-utilized acting talent leads to massive success and growth. 2020s : Making the same old crap over and over with the same actors contributes to an industry-wide collapse. The moral of the story is, executives need more cocaine
Touchstone will always have a special place in my heart. While I may not have watched many of their movies, I still remember the trailers on Disney VHS tapes for Down out in Beverly Hills, Good Morning Vietnam, Cocktail etc etc etc. So for me Touchstone is just as much Disney as Classic Disney is.
Ah I miss that old logo...the good ol'days of movies. Those days are LONG dead and I have no hope in the future. But that's just my old man ways of thinking...I envy the young who are still full of positivity and enjoy life as it is today. I just don't know how to be like that anymore...I'm too bitter about everything. RIP 80's and 90's.
Disney getting rid of Touchstone is a mistake, trying to get all sorts of non PG movies under the same Disney umbrella is not good for the brand as a whole. The entire point of Touchstone was that they could do something that wouldn't fit their family friendly image for the main studio.
Honestly this was such a good arrangement they should have kept it going, you can still feel how Disney is afraid to go all out with projects they publish under the "Disney" label, even if they may go somewhat harder in them. More studios should also create seperate sub-studios for mid-budget films that are more experimental but won't be a detriment to their catalogue if it flops. Everybody knew Disney was behind Touchstone but it still felt separate because it was, they operated it completely differently. You could do this today too, these studios would basically be laboratories for new original IPs, let filmmakers experiment and if the movie works they could publish sequels with the main studio. That's a win-win scenario, risk is reduced and you get to reap the rewards of an usually risky maneuver if it succeeds which always means big bucks. This would also be good for consumers, they would know a movie by this studio is going to be more experimental and thus are going to set their expectations accordingly. Consumers might even seek films out from these studios for that reason, basically an A24 with a big financial backer.
Oh wow! Thanks so much for creating this very interesting video! As major Movie Enthusiasts, and collectors of movies on DVD... We really enjoy videos like this! Great work! 👍🏻
Dang I was recommended this video out of the blue and after finishing it I was blown away by how small your channel is. The quality in your content definitely feels like it’s from a larger channel. You earned my sub today 😁✌️
I liked the Ernest movies. Did you know he used to be an actual character for Braums Ice Cream shops? I guess they made him as a sort of mascot to compete with Ronald McDonald.
*Correction: "Signs" was actually Shyamalan's 5th (!) overall feature... and his 4th for the Disney company (including "Wide Awake" in 1998 for Miramax and "Unbreakable" in 2000 for Touchstone)
Please tell me the music you used at 17:21. I'm begging you, lol.
@@jimross3593sounds a lot like Van Halen's "Jump."
Thanks, I was just coming here to note the correction!
Another correction is that New Line Cinema was still its own separately run entity from Warner Bros. under Time-Warner until 2008. Thus, Warner Bros had no involvement in the development or production of The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. That was all New Line, on their own, under the leadership of NLC founder Robert Shaye.
Would you consider doing a video on Hollywood Pictures?
That intro of Touchstone logo is just a nostalgia overload.
Hollwood Pictures logo intro has the same effect. The Hand That Rocks the Cradle is one of my favorites.
Absolutely!!!
All True now Touchstone is relabeled as 20th Century Studios.
Yes!
Relax p Diddy
Still find it funny how The Nightmare Before Christmas was released as a touchstone film, but as soon as it became a cult classic (and thus more merchandisable) Disney reclaimed it
😂😂😂😂. On me tho. It’s like Mike Jones iconic hit song line that goes,
“Back then they didn’t want me,
Now I’m hot they all on me.”
Well, even more now, Disney now owns Edward Scissorhands through the Fox acquissition.
The first trailer for "National Treasure" indicated it was a Touchstone release. But when the MPAA gave the film a PG rating prior to opening, it suddenly became an official Walt Disney title.
Take note, Mr. Mouse is playing for keeps.
I always thought I was crazy when I first saw The Disney logo over Nightmare Before Christmas.
As a child of the VHS era that intro gave me chills.
Same!
Saw it twice yesterday and both times was all..."awwww"
@@fuhqsideways sure bring back memories.
Back then I had no idea it was disney, and I knew it was going to me something a bit heavier than the usual kid's movie.
Facts also the tri star and f.h.e. are good ones too
"Mature entertainment with Disney standards", back then this actually meant something.
You whine like a sagger lover
Now it's just "standard mature entertainment with Disney"
Pretty Woman being the classic example
@@pauliedibbs9028 childish writing with adult themes...
@@AKATenn even that's giving them too much credit!
Its funny now how after the Hulu merger, Disney+ has all the typical kids classics alongside things like The Omen and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
Here in Latin America Disney+ only has kid-friendly content, plus all of the Star Wars and Marvel ones, the more mature films and shows are available on a separate service called Star+, though they're meant to merge this month. Still, I was kind of surprised to see some Touchstone films like Splash in Disney+
Don’t get me wrong, I love always sunny, it’s probably the best sitcom on tv right now but yeah it doesn’t fit in on Disney+
They don't want kids to be children anymore in America.
They need them on tiktok half naked amped up on junk food
In Canada, we never had Hulu so the "adult" content was always on Disney+.
Thank you!!! It's so unorganized
I wish Disney pay Respect to Touchstone, by putting a Touchstone Tab on the Disney+ App.
And Hollywood, too.
I'd wish Disney would actually sell Touchstone to Jerry Bruckheimer.
I’m still confused why the revived touchstone television was so short-lived…
But yeah, touchstone deserves to be remembered, same goes for hollywood (disney’s other movie company).
Nothing stopping Disney from renaming the Star Tab to the Touchstone Tab instead.
@@MrSmith1984 star is only in India. Other than that, sounds like a genius move.
Disney in the 80's:
Let's create a label under Disney so that we can create pictures with more nudity, oriented to a more adult audience.
Disney+ upon launch:
Let's put Splash on and censor the hell out it. Replace shots so there are no more nipples, crop shots to hide her behind and cover it up with digital hair.
To think Touchstone was founded for content like Splash and then censor it decades later is quite ironic and ridiculous.
Thank god it has since been restored to it's original glory in 4K. (streaming only)
These films need more love and respect in the form of 4k restorations and proper home media releases. They have the potential to shine and sell on the 4k UHD format.
Let's censor it in United States while keeping it uncensored overseas in Australia and New Zealand.
Oriented, not orentated.
@@blaster-zy7xxNay nay! It’s orenentamentalized, sir!
That's the Disney way though they always wanted the adult content crowd but never willing to actually show anything adult themed. It was all family content all the time. I saw a lot of their films but not many in the theater even as a kid. Doesn't surprise me one bit they are censoring Splash they are not allow to show a straight couple holding hands let alone kissing in any production now because it isn't gay. Doesn't fit the message.
@@bartsullivan4866 You jumped the shark on the last two sentences. Turn off Fox News. It turns your brain to mush.
The biggest issue with Touchstone’s death these days is the lack of respect for their library
Is that why I'm having a hard time finding the Blu-ray of _Father of the Bride I_ and _II?_
@@dnasty312 Its on Hulu and Disney+
@@dnasty312I don’t know what country you’re in but Father of the Bride 2 is on Disney+ in America.
@@thedukeofchutney468 That does not help with finding the Blu-Ray... in fact, it's counterproductive.
@@dnasty312 Granted that has a lot to do with the erosion of ownership and shift to subscription models. Why sell you a movie once when we can bill you for the same or nearly the same price _every month?_
It's wild to me that some rich dude can just buy enough stock in a company to say, "Okay. Liquidate everything. Shut everything down. You're all fired." Even crazier that it almost happened to Disney.
It makes sense. You have the most invested in the company and are the most powerful player by virtue of that. What you say happens.
It's the fundamentally undemocratic nature of Capitalism. You're right, it's crazy.
if that wasn't true, then publicly listed companies wouldn't actually be owned by the shareholders (even though most shareholders don't buy stock for that purpose).
If culture is America's greatest export then you'd think there'd be more consideration for and protection of the industry. Still a problem today with the shrinking number of distribution companies.
Happens all the time - it's what private equity does. Toys R Us, Sears, Red Lobster are all famous examples. But they don't just liquidate, first they make the company take on a ton of debt which they pull out in some form or another (like bonuses). THEN they send the company through bankruptcy.
That touchstone was the intro to all the classics growing up in the 90s.
What classics ??? They were mediocre white depictions
@@ZOONGOZEEN "white depictions" Hello, racist.
White depictions? @@ZOONGOZEEN
Touchstone would be EXACTLY what Disney, or actually all Hollywood, desperately needs. Relatively cheaply made original productions, where it would be possible to actually strike gold. Not every movie of course, but if you can make 10+ of those for the price of a single Marvel-movie, you only need a hit once in a while to stay afloat. And since those other movies would generate some profit also, the hits would actually make it shine instead of just survive.
Bingo, this is EXACTLY it. It doesn’t matter if every movie is a hit or not if the company can keep production costs low enough in the first place, and that’s impossible with giant blockbusters from existing franchises. It’s getting ridiculous now reading about movies pulling in 100 million and still being referred to as a “failure”. Going back to the 80’s and 90’s, a small or mid-budget film could gross 20-40 million and be considered a success.
Not to mention that when all Hollywood wants to do is focus on franchises, that means any and all creativity and originality goes out the window.
Today Disney gets on its knees for ESG Score from BlackRock and their Funding. They care NOTHING for what we actually want to see, or care about.
That's basically what A24 is. Though they focused almost 100% on dramas until recently, their massive success with Everything Everywhere All at Once seems to have galvanized them to move into other genres and more mainstream than pure art house. Multiple Oscars and their highest grossing film ever. Though the take is still small, 143 mill but on a budget of 25 mill. Most of their stuff has profits way lower. Risky business doesn't take many flops to sink the company.
@@steverogers8163 Yeah. A24 is the modern day Touchstone basically. And heck even like Touchstone, A24 is also branching out a bit with other production methods like animation. Heck they just released the animated series "Hazbin Hotel", their first ever animated production, on prime video half a year ago to huge critical and financial success. Things are going well for that little studio and their ventures.
But is that woke enough? It needs to be woke or Disney won't touch it. On the other hand, people won't watch it if it's woke.
It's still so weird to me to see Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis, and Treasure Planet being brought up as failures despite the fact that all three of those movies are absolutely beloved today. Though with the latter two it's understandable considering that Eisner was intentionally torpedo-ing the animation wing at Disney.
Excluding Big Hero 6, animated Disney movies seem to bomb when they attempt SciFi.
@@mattwolf7698 Wall-E would beg to differ.
@@balsalmalberto8086 its pixar
It's because the only metrics that the companies care about is box office sales.
A great example is the game cube. Commercially it was a huge flop because the company barely made any money off the sales of the system and games.
However it's a very popular system that produced many games people loved.
Same with the Wii, Commercially it didn't make the company much money yet in the zidgist of our culture its remembered well
@@Shadowtiger2564the Nintendo Wii was gangbusters for the company, which is why they hesitated to innovate away from it in the first place. The switch design was first half assed with the release of the Wii U. The Wii was extremely popular and highly profitable per console sold.
What I learned from this video; Disney had been after Star wars for a very long time.
By the time Disney started making attractions using star wars I felt that they already had the franchise in their hands. I got a little weirded out when they decided to make new star wars films, but i gave it a chance... And hated it. Disney star wars isn't star wars. 🤷🏻♂️
@@PowerRangersFanAntiDinoFuryFor better or worse, it certainly doesn’t have the Lucas touch.
And in typical "careful what you wish for" fashion, didn't know what to do after obtaining it.
@@custos3249 Not beyond "don't be like George Lucas" at least.
@@LinkMarioSamus Which they still haven't managed to do while they make all sorts of new mistakes. I've never been a fan and see the original trilogy the same way I do KISS - great _for its time_ - but even I feel bad for fans old enough to know a time before Disney-ification. I've watched my own beloved franchises be gutted for "modern audiences/preferences" in whatever capacity that means, like Final Fantasy becoming just another ADHD third person action game. It's like watching an old friend descend into chemical madness. And when you question, it's made abundantly clear it's fueled by huffing their own farts.
RIP
Touchstone Pictures
(1984-2016)
RIP
Walt Disney's Legacy
(1923-2019)
I miss Hollywood Pictures
8:52 "[Eisner's] corporate philosophy was that companies had to take chances and innovate to succeed."
Precisely the two concepts that Disney no longer espouses.
Iger is full of it
@user-li2yv5je5eAlmost every studio in Hollywood is playing it safe.
And Eisner usually has the reputation has being Disney's WORST CEO!
It's worth noting that Eisner himself had abandoned that philosophy once Disney became bigger and more profitable (i.e., trying to cancel the first Pirates film due to its high budget). It was probably easier to take risks when there was nothing to lose... but once the company became a huge conglomerate, executives tend to avoid any choices that might rock the boat. Unfortunately this is a common trend in entertainment companies that become hugely successful.
They took a chance with Cuties the child prawns on Disney+
Walt watching To Kill a Mockingbird: "I need to make important pictures under a different brandname."
Touchstone Pictures: "OK we gotta movie about a Reno lounge singer who witnessed a murdere and needs to go undercover as...wait...a nun in San Francisco!"
Well it produced results, didn't it? Haha.
implying sister act isn't an important film.....
Yeah, without Sister Act, we never would've gotten Sister Act 2!
How different the 80's were. If you wanted to start a mid budget label for original stand alone adult films today, you would be laughed out of Hollywood. I miss that era. The Touchstone jingle was the sound of my childhood.
I do miss Touchstone a lot, especially now that modern Disney in general feels lost when it comes to their output. Barely anything comes out of 20th Studios that isn’t a franchise, and if they didn’t have so many Oscar hits like Nomadland and Poor Things, Searchlight would’ve definitely been on the chopping block. It’s so annoying that Disney keeps refusing to make real movies, instead this constant churn of IP based movies that feel void of personality and creativity. Something like Unbreakable or The Insider would never be greenlit by them today.
Unbreakable, what a good movie from Shayamalan, not a usual superhero movie, I liked Split but I've heard it was awful. 100% agree with you, I want to see them doing something original again.
@@jesustovar2549 Glass, where they combine Split and Unbreakable, is the one you’ve heard about being bad. Split revived M Night’s career
Dead Poets Society and Good Morning Vietnam were phenomenal to me when I saw them while in High School, and made me a life long fan of Robin Williams.
I grew up with Disney, now its completely dead to me.
Yeah. If anything one needs to look elsewhere for new original movie and TV productions that dare to give up and coming storytellers a shot with more vivid ideas. The best place for that these days is probably the studio A24, who by now are probably most well known for the movie "Everything, Everywhere, All at once" and the Animated TV series "Hazbin Hotel".
Who Framed Roger Rabbit was one of the most innovative and best films that Disney/Touchstone Pictures created. I've watched it many times over the years, and it amazes me how creative and great it still is. The blend of 2D-animated characters and living humans still hold up, and its messages about prejudice and overcoming it is strong and still resonate to this day. They didn't hammer anything or alienate audiences to get their point across, they had a neat innovative world where humans and cartoon characters coexisted, they had a great script and great characters, a flawed but relatable human protagonist whose cynical personality bounced off their less serious and more silly cartoon deuteragonist, they had a strong iconic female character, a terrifying villain, great music, and it became the best live-action/2D-animation hybrid film of all time and renewed the Disney Renaissance.
It sucks that current Disney refuses to acknowledge its existence and its cultural significance, though I guess that's also kind of a good thing, since acknowledging its existence would probably give it the "live-action" remake treatment. What's worse is the knowledge that we know WFRR would not have been made today, which shows just how low Disney has become. The studio has become a shell of its former self and an example of how low empires can fall.
R.I.P Touchstone Pictures.
"Can Disney make a good film anymore?"
And were right back at the beginning of the end again.
Disney had profit of 2.5 billion last year one of best years How much you made 😅
@@nalleinsowilo6268and what movie are you saying was good? Going by your logic McDonald's is the highest quality food out there because they made a lot of money off it.
I have no clue I don't watch movies or TV..Movie making is business, , job of studio is make money and turn a profit .
@@nalleinsowilo6268so you can see the confusion. Your comment has NOTHING to do with my comment.
@@tRav285 He's a dumbass.
I remember Roger Rabbit being a BIG deal back in the day. That was a pretty darn good movie though. I love it more now than I did as a kid because I see how much effort and care were put into it.
also crazy how warner and disney split it all 50/50. they both had characters on the screen at the same time. will never be done again
@@teleskopossomnium Good point. Very odd seeing Daffy Duck and Porky Pig with the Disney characters. But it worked so well in that film.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a masterpiece of filmmaking.
Actually, Dead Poets Society was the first Touchstone film to be nominated for Best Picture, not Quiz Show.
"Quiz Show" was created by Disney's Hollywood Pictures division, not Touchstone Pictures.
The way I worded that was confusing. "Quiz Show" was the first Hollywood Pictures film to be nominated for Best Picture.
This is my first time watching your content.
Touchstone was such an important part of my childhood as an 80s kid! This was an amazing little history lesson. I kept wondering "When is he going to mention" and you mentioned all of them that I could think of!!
I totally liked it and subscribed!
Yeah this guy does his homework
Touchstone Pictures was totally ahead of time before that Disney Plus and Hulu bundle came out, years later lol.
Fun fact about The Black Hole, it was released on a same day as "Star Trek The Motion Picture", guess which was more popular?
Reminds me of the story of how Alfred Hitchcock wanted to film a movie at Disney World and this was right after "Psycho" and Walt reportedly said "I don't want that filth in my park!"
He mentioned Star Trek in the video and compared the films' popularities.
And history along with victims' stories would reveal the irony of that statement
Yes, Walt only wanted HIS kind of filth in his park
As a huge Alfred Hitchcock fan, I never heard that story with Disney before😅
I was a kid in the 4th grade that year and remember vividly the advertising on television and movie posters on buses and the subways. My friends and I were very excited about The Black Hole, but something about that first Star Trek picture made everyone think it would be dreary and boring. By the early '80s- Sci-Fi was more about "action" and less about "philosophy" re 2001 Space Odyssey.
For what it's worth, Eisner wasn't entirely to blame for refusing Lord of the Rings. It was actually the Weinsteins negotiating, as Miramax held the rights. What Eisner did refuse was Peter Jackson's request to film two consecutive films back to back, especially on such a high risk project. It was believed that Harvey Weinstein even suggested simply cutting the two films into one (which obviously would've gone badly). While Jackson did respond by fucking off when Robert Shaye decided New Line Cinema would do *the entire trilogy at once,* Miramax, and thus Disney, did negotiate a deal where they got a 5% cut of all LOtR profits, and Harvey and Bob Weinstein would still receive executive producer credits.
It would be funny if Weinstein wanted the two LOTR films merged into one (I wish they came to this agreement with The Hobbit), when he suggested Quentin Tarantino to cut Kill Bill into two films.
And thank god they did because there’s no way the films would have turned out as well as they did had Touchstone / Miramax been its producers.
You know for a guy who liked his literature, it's quite bizzare that Eisner wasn't keen on splitting the adaptation of LOTR into two parts.
And I don't blame Jackson for insisting on filming it back-to-back, especially when Ralph Bakshi got screwed when his backers refused to fund part 2 of his adaptation.
I think it was more the idea of spending so much money on something that wasn't a surefire bet for success was not something he wanted Disney to risk- and you could hardly blame him, most fantasies or adaptations that attempted to shoehorn fantasies in them failed and failed *miserably,* before AND after its release. And that Bakshi adaptation wasn't exactly the best first impression for film execs.
@@erics.czernecki7333
I get that Eisner didn't want to spend $150 Million on a Two-Part Fantasy Film by a director that was quite unknown in Hollywood at the time. However, he would likely known how popular The Lord of Rings Trilogy was compared to most fantasy novels and thus it's potential as a successful movie compared to most fantasy films.
Heck, the Bakshi Adaptation (despite being half an adaptation & quite rushed in telling it's plot) was quite profitable at the box office.
Funny enough; Eisner would later blame Harvey Weinstein's refusal to share details (about the project) for turning down the film in the first place. Honestly though, both deserve blame for Disney basically gifting the project to New Line Cinema.
It’s interesting to look back at certain film and television studios that were once big, but are now gone. Seeing a film with the Touchstone logo is something that I remember quite a bit when I grew up in the 90s. It’s unfortunate it’s gone, but also not surprising either.
One would think that 20th Century Studios and Searchlight Pictures should become the spiritual succesors of Touchstone, but it seems we only had glimpses of it with things like The Creator, in terms of original stuff. And for some reason they dropped distribution of The Bikeriders, which is now in the hands of Focus Features.
Fortunately seems that Searchlight is in a good place with the success of Poor Things, and it seems that Yorgos next film could repeat the sucess.
I was wondering: "what happened with The Bikeriders?".
Wow! I totally missed that the _Bikeriders_ had changed distributors. Thanks. Considering how popular Austin Butler is now I wonder why it happened.
The real reason they pulled off of Disney releasing the movie was because New Regency’s prior movie The Creator actually bombed at the worldwide box office, along with the dreaded SAG union strikes still taking shape then.
They also delayed The Bikeriders from the December launch window within the interim.
@@matthewkrenzler1171Such a shame The Creator flopped, the film felt like a complete breath of fresh air in comparison to other big budget films.
Sidetrack I know: I remember Bob Hoskins saying after Roger Rabbit that he needed to take a break from acting and get his head straight as so many months talking to characters that were not there IRL had done a number on him and he was talking to imaginary things outside work. I mean nowadays acting to things that aren't even there is kind of the norm.
That shows how committed was to it.
You do a really good job. The research, editing, and even narration are very well done.
While Disney might have made an unthinkable amount of money from its big franchises in recent years I feel like the cinema ecosystem needs labels like Touchstone, banging out original (if not always hugely profitable) films and investing in talent. It feels like the well of big budget franchise hits was always going to run dry eventually. They have nothing to fall back on.
I agree with you. It's a really strange time as there is a massive oversaturation of content. It's just too much, which causes little to truly be excited about.
It's much less about quality then it is about using IP's to sustain subscription numbers at this point.
We do have A24 at least.
This was a fantastic retrospective and I’m already glad to have started watching your videos. I’m a new subscriber and this video helped me feel very good today because of all the wonderful memories I have of Touchstone movies! Thank you and well done. I will never forget so many of these incredible movies and the Tv shows like Boy Meets World and home Improvement. Lots of incredible memories. I will certainly always be thankful to Touchstone. Looking forward to seeing more of your content!
Disney tested the waters with the PG rating by releasing a movie called "Takedown" that starred Lorenzo Lamas and was about a high school wrestler. It was released prior to "The Black Hole" and was not produced by Walt Disney Studios but was released by their distribution arm Buena Vista Distribution.
These Documentaries are done very well, very informative and enjoyable. Thanks for doing them.
Touchstone made Ernest Goes To Camp, Ernest Saves Christmas, Ernest Goes To Jail, and Ernest Scared Stupid
So the best Ernest movies
Please, The Ernest Quadrilogy.
I never heard of these but I finally get the "Ernest Cuts The Cheese" joke from the Simpsons 😅
Oh how I love Jim Varney.❤
It was so sad when he died
Disney doesn't get enough credit for giving talented directors the free reign to make their wild passion project through Touchstone. It's unlikely we would have gotten to see movies like O Brother Where Art Thou?, Ed Wood, Apocalypto, Starship Troopers, or The Prestige without them. Great video!
And nightmare before christmas, no? At least from what I remember reading at the time, Tim Burton was just starting his career after working at Disney for a while... But I could be wrong.
I never thought of Touchstone as a division of Disney or as an individual studio worth seeking out. It was just another company logo before the movie started.
Yep. That was the idea and they should have stuck to that. Now we got so much mud in the water on what is and isn't meant for families from Disney that the brand has no meaning other than cashed in, preachy remakes and sequels.
Yep no one gives a shit what studio puts out what movie, they just care if its good or not. When people see a movie they almost never even know who the studio was
Me too
@@suspensesmith that's why I don't care how much money *Inside Out 2* makes. They are still relying on sequels and remakes to pull them out of a whole created by too many sequels and remakes.
@@matthewa11and they say that insanity is repeating something over and over again but expecting different results.
The Wells Eisner Katzeberg trio mid 80s to mid 90s era of Disney is my favorite in the company's history. Look at what was made, the sky was the limit. RIP Frank, you were the glue 😔
That part of Disney was central to my childhood memories of movie going and renting VHS's from that time growing up. Mid-90s, things felt different or the cares for the renaissance was over or shifting to completing with Pixar on the 3D market. Either way, my love for this company long term was going to be challenged into the 2000s.
That Robin Williams joke about Michael Eisner hanging out at the Betty Ford Clinic made laugh out loud. 😂 I totally forgot how notorious he was about hiring actors at their low points.
It was always a Disney tradition to hire people who were either on the way up or on the way down if they didn't build them from the ground up themselves.
Right? Look at Down & Out in Beverly Hills. Quite the cast
I literally went decades without nightmares from seeing Watcher in the Woods when I was 8, and now you’ve gone and brought it up again! For crying out loud!
Yay this channel isn't dead.
Touchstone on the other hand…
@@billyguy6645Disney is about to die too
@voidinteractive9308Walt…Walt never changes
It seems like the kind of label that could make a return someday, especially if Marvel and Star Wars productions continue to under perform. The first Touchstone movie I ever saw was Ernest Goes to Camp. So I have always associated their logo and musical motif with that movie.
Great vid, it's interesting how so often in the '90s, Touchstone was key to Disney's box office that year.
One could argue that 20th Century Studios has taken the place of Touchstone for mature standalone films for Disney.
Except the fact it comes along with its own franchises primarily Alien and Predator.
@@RazorF157Right! And they got James Cameron’s _Avatar_ movies from their 20th Century Studios acquisition too,
I would imagine that Disney probably sees it that way. Now that Fox Searchlight is under their ownership, they likely see no need to have another "indie" studio like Touchstone. But unfortunately, due to all the mergers and buyouts as of late, that means there are less distributors releasing smaller films overall.
@@channelserferI’m glad that Disney still gives Searchlight autonomy (at least for now). There have been some great Searchlight movies lately.
@@extofer why "for now"? What do you think would change it?
Absolutely good video. Came in my recomendations and I've greatly enjoyed it how nicely written it was, but mostly all the visual aid, in the form of videos of the era, logos, posters, etc. Another suscriber.
Well, considering Disney bought out 20th Century Fox, why bother having just a little branding like Touchstone Pictures, when you now own an even bigger name where you can release non-family movies. Although, Disney doesn't seem to be sure what to do with Fox, and only now are they starting to make proper use of it, what with the huge success of Avatar: The Way of Water, and of course the upcoming Deadpool and Wolverine, which will be their first R-rated picture in the MCU. So, it looks like 20th Century Fox will basically become the new Touchstone Pictures for Disney
Touchstone Century FOX
20th Century Touchstone
They actually tried very briefly not long after the Fox/Disney merge, but it was very brief. and by brief I mean like 2 months at the most.
@@hipsterelephant2660 The issue is Iger's greed and arrogance. It feels like he wanted Fox just so he could get access to their massive library. He didn't seem to have any intentions of using it like Touchstone. And that's why I refuse to invest in any Disney stock. They need to fire Iger.
Man, this documentation is really the good stuff. Keep up the good work!
I’m surprised that there was no mention of the criminally underrated movie “What About Bob?”. It is a comedy classic.
Baby steps... ;)
I love that movie
@@emmittmorgans8076 roses are red, violets are blue, I’m a schizophrenic, and so am I. 😂
yeah but not a massive success. only 2x profits and #2 that year for the Buena Vista arm. Though I can easily imagine it made a ton more on the VHS/Cable TV market afterwards. Apparently there was/is a lawsuit about the profits from the movie.
@@jordanhurd1988
“Roses are blue, violets are red.
I have to go to the bathroom.”
A poem by Patrick Star
Excellent video! I can’t believe you only have 15K subscribers and 9 total videos.
Exceptional work. I wish you great success with this channel. 🙏
Minor correction: Signs was M. Night Shyamalan's fifth film, not his second. His second film was 1998's Wide Awake.
That’s his overall backlog. But it’s actually Unbreakable being his second movie from there.*
*Being produced with Disney themselves however.
That was my bad, I've been trying to forget that Wide Awake exists 😵💫
@@channelserfer Lol, I get that.
Thank you for this; you've illustrated the filmistic hallmarks of my youth and young adult life in a way that I wasn't aware of. Thanks.
The production quality is incredible!
This is a very solid video. As a "tween" in the 80s I remember just what a glut of mid-range movies Touchstone released (and a little later Hollywood Pictures, its sister company). This sort of film isn't really made any more.
This may sound weird or funny 😅 but as a movie geek kid in the ‘80s, Touchstone Pictures was my favorite studio. I loved their movies and always hoped to one day work with them. And we didn’t have Showtime - our cable carrier only had HBO and Cinemax, and it bummed me out that Touchstone releases only played on Showtime back then! 😆 Finally, thanks for the explanation of the name’s meaning. I thought it was for some reason named after the character from Shakespeare’s “As You Like It.”
I had to check who this was, because the narrator sounds exactly like Ryan from Watcher. Great video!
4:00 What movie is this hell scene from?
I love how the dated special effects give it an even more off-putting vibe.
The Devil and Max Devlin
You'll never guess who plays the devil in that movie lmao
@@Charon.1 Talk about great casting! LOL!
When I saw that logo I knew I was gonna see something good.
It's weird that 20th Century Fox, a major studio and competitor to Disney has now become the successor to Touchstone Pictures. It's also funny that movies like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" which was released under the Touchstone label because it was PG-13 are now on Disney Plus and would be released today under the Walt Disney Studios banner.
I'm a huge fan of Touchstone, Miramax, Dimension, Hollywood Pictures, ABC, etc.!! I knew many of their media owned by Disney. 2000s for life!!
Me too.
Miramax and Dimensions are Weinstein owned studios not Disney
Happy 40th anniversary to Touchstone Pictures, which was introduced on February 15th, 1984. On behalf of myself, thank you, Touchstone Pictures, for saving the Disney Company and helping shape up Disney to what it is today.
Your channel is rad. Keep up the good work.
This was really good! Hopefully you can do other studios like DreamWorks etc
🙌
Great video..👍
I was 19 in 1984 , and a serious once-a-week moviegoer for many years after that, so much so we simply got used to seeing the Touchstone Pictures logo a few times a month for years...😁
Dude I was so happy when I realized Disney produced Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums. Finally, my love of Disney and my love of Wes Anderson have intersected.
The Royal Tenebaums is good way to introduce Wes Anderson, very enjoyable family film, also you got Gene Hackman before he retired (I miss him).
@@jesustovar2549 One of the best actors of his generation. What is your favorite movie starring him?
24:16 That's not all that Touchstone had been with DreamWorks. There was also I Am Number Four, Fright Night and Real Steel.
In the past few years Disney would kill to only have losses of 30-50 million rather than the billions they’re currently losing.
You could argue that Disney are in a creative rut and face challenges making Streaming Profitable. However Disney itself ain't losing money as a whole, especially when their profits were $2.3 Billion in 2023.
Likewise, apart from Amazon & Apple, virtually nobody could launch a full buyout of Disney itself.
Which wasn't the case in the Mid-80s.
Disney profit in 2023 was 2 billion
@@nalleinsowilo6268 they lost 2 billion on D+ alone, over a billion on 2 movie, wish and the marvels, their stock is constantly declining m, and universal studios outperformed Disney world for the first time ever. Their adherence to “the message” is bringing their downfall.
losses?
Bless your heart.
@@jamespohl-md2eq yes, losses. It’s losing billions each quarter on D+, universal studios has overtaken Disney world as the most popular theme park and they lost over a billion on just 2 movies last year alone, not to mention they’re about to lose at least half a billion on the fake captain America movie coming out later this year. Inside out 2 and Deadpool will be their only financial successes this year. Everything else will be massive losses.
That was brilliant.
Very well made, sir.
You've been mooched and subscribed!
"He's not around to tell us, so it's really kind of counterproductive to wonder what he might have done." This is how we should approach our relationships with historical figures generally.
Awesome video brother! Keep up the great work!
Interesting to see that Disney was in a very similar position in the 80s that they are now, with all of their new movies flopping hard, and people generally thinking that they aren't capable of making anything good anymore.
For the longest time I thought Disney was still on top because I thought they owned Pixar.
@@John_Locke_108Well, they bought Pixar in 2006 for a good reason, but even back in the 70s, 80s and 2000s, Disney had gems that grew on a lot of people's hearts.
My childhood was the late 1970s/early '80s and among my friends Disney was considered for toddlers. You would be ridiculed for having a Walt Disney lunchbox or Mickey Mouse on your clothes. Hanna Barbera and Warner bros. IP were considered more "edgy" among us 4th graders! LOL
That's hilarious, I feel being a kid in the early 2000s was very similar. It was all about Cartoon Network at my school!
The history of Disney and its peaks and valleys is a fascinating tale as old as time. Lol
Incredible breakdown, buddy. Thank you for your work :) Fist bumps from Canada
I re-watched a couple of 80s Touchstone films. They play like TV movies with a bit of adult content. Still, would prefer that to another superhero movie loaded with CGI.
I honestly think that was their off ramp since the 80s was when cable TV became a mainstream option. If the movie sucked to much for theaters they could offload it onto cable TV to try and brake even. The rise of VHS becoming a 3rd option too. I've heard multiple directors/actors saying in interviews that they made movies relying entirely on the idea they would see profits from the VHS end of things and not the theatrical run. Both these options ended up spawning cult sleeper hits like "Shawshank Redemption" which bombed at the box office but VHS turned it into a movie classic, it was the #1 movie rental that year and is apparently still one of WB's most valuable titles for licensing.
There's nothing wrong with superhero movies, the problem is filling them with woke trash and disrespecting the comics and the fans
@@mbii7667Nah lmao, superhero movies in general are the same corporate slop regardless of "muh fans"
@@PeruvianPotato uh no, they can be great and have been great
this video was really well done, would love to see more content like this. I'm gonna subscribe, looking forward to what you'll share next
1980s : Wanting to make new, innovative movies with under-utilized acting talent leads to massive success and growth. 2020s : Making the same old crap over and over with the same actors contributes to an industry-wide collapse. The moral of the story is, executives need more cocaine
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. You create great, unbiased content.
Oh God the second that music sting hit. I miss renting tapes on the weekend, man.
Touchstone will always have a special place in my heart. While I may not have watched many of their movies, I still remember the trailers on Disney VHS tapes for Down out in Beverly Hills, Good Morning Vietnam, Cocktail etc etc etc. So for me Touchstone is just as much Disney as Classic Disney is.
Something wicked this way comes is soooo underrated I love that one I wasn’t born when it came out but it’s such a great autumn movie
This was a great delve into the history - I learned some things I didn’t know! Thanks! 🙌
Ah I miss that old logo...the good ol'days of movies. Those days are LONG dead and I have no hope in the future. But that's just my old man ways of thinking...I envy the young who are still full of positivity and enjoy life as it is today. I just don't know how to be like that anymore...I'm too bitter about everything. RIP 80's and 90's.
Lol rest assured that my generation is not what I’d call “full of positivity”
@@apollo1493 I'm doing my best to remain optimistic 😅
_Return to Oz_ is one of my all time favorite modern movies, it is wonderful! I wish it was a longer film.
Disney getting rid of Touchstone is a mistake, trying to get all sorts of non PG movies under the same Disney umbrella is not good for the brand as a whole.
The entire point of Touchstone was that they could do something that wouldn't fit their family friendly image for the main studio.
Honestly this was such a good arrangement they should have kept it going, you can still feel how Disney is afraid to go all out with projects they publish under the "Disney" label, even if they may go somewhat harder in them. More studios should also create seperate sub-studios for mid-budget films that are more experimental but won't be a detriment to their catalogue if it flops. Everybody knew Disney was behind Touchstone but it still felt separate because it was, they operated it completely differently. You could do this today too, these studios would basically be laboratories for new original IPs, let filmmakers experiment and if the movie works they could publish sequels with the main studio. That's a win-win scenario, risk is reduced and you get to reap the rewards of an usually risky maneuver if it succeeds which always means big bucks.
This would also be good for consumers, they would know a movie by this studio is going to be more experimental and thus are going to set their expectations accordingly. Consumers might even seek films out from these studios for that reason, basically an A24 with a big financial backer.
Oh wow! Thanks so much for creating this very interesting video! As major Movie Enthusiasts, and collectors of movies on DVD... We really enjoy videos like this! Great work! 👍🏻
They should make a separate streaming service/cable channel called Disney After Dark.
I've been waiting so long. Worth the wait!
Eisner era had the best business and creative concepts
It was only working because of Frank Wells. After he died, it went downhill.
@@weirdstuffcorp8584 The hill being a cliff that they fell off of.
That touchstone theme let u know an absolute BANGER was about to come on
Good to see you back! Love this video man we still got to collab soon.
Gotta say this is a fantastic video man- subbed! Keep up the good work
Dang I was recommended this video out of the blue and after finishing it I was blown away by how small your channel is. The quality in your content definitely feels like it’s from a larger channel. You earned my sub today 😁✌️
So did I. No other reason.
Just discovered the channel and love the content. Excited for more!
Touchstone gave us the first few Ernest movies and that's a win
I liked the Ernest movies. Did you know he used to be an actual character for Braums Ice Cream shops? I guess they made him as a sort of mascot to compete with Ronald McDonald.
Fond memories of Touchstone and proper studio films. Small to medium films appear to have gotten lost, as has my interest in going to the cinema.
I always wondered where they get the Touchtone name. Splash was the first film I saw from the company on vhs in 1985.
Every 40 years Disney gets an injection of innovation. We're due for another.
You’re right
50 years later "can disney still make a good film? we haven't seen a good disney film in a long time" is still resonant
Changing the name of the production company isn't going to increase box office sales. Producing good, original, mid-budget movies will.
Great video. Really enjoyed it. First one I've seen from this channel