2023 Haunted Mansion film

Maybe we could keep the conversation focused on this movie, and not the ride in general.

Terence Stamp as Ramsley was indeed great in the 2003 movie. Have people who've seen this one said it's better than the other one? Again, as someone who likes that one, it wouldn't be surprising.

Thinking of doing a double feature of both it and Barbie with my friend this weekend. Haha.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Aug 3rd 2023 at 9:03:37 AM

I ended up liking this a lot! I went to see it because I was just in the mood for a "dumb fun" movie the other day, but it's surprisingly scary and surprisingly deep! I didn't hate the first one but, let's be honest, it was basically just an excuse for Eddie Murphy to mug for the camera. In this one everyone involved takes it very seriously and it's all the better, all the scarier and all the funnier for it.

I still want to see it certainly. It looked like there was a lot of effort to avoid not just doing the 2003 movie again based off the ads and trailers. Again, State Farm as a primary sponsor is both strange and yet not strange.

Gotta love actors showing up in ads promoting their movies. Haha.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Aug 9th 2023 at 7:42:11 AM

Oh it's absolutely nothing like the 2003 one. The only things they have in common are some characters from the ride and, well, a haunted mansion.

I saw the film last week and wanted to sit on it a bit before I gave some thoughts.

I think it's a better movie and it's way better written than the first film. But I also feel like there's two films here; neither poorly written, but two different movies trying to take form.

I would be willing to bet that all of the past history of the mansion and Crump is from Del Toro's version of the story or at least based on his notes. Kinda makes sense; Hatbox himself was kinda the only part we knew about his version early on and those sections are tonally different from everything around it. Making the East Coast Mansion design as Crump's Manor was a brilliant design decision.

I kinda love and hate the characters. On one hand, they're surprisingly well written. Pretty much everyone has an arc, even if a small one. On the other... I hate how much it comes at the expense of the mansion itself and the ghosts. Pretty much ALL of the mansion's ghosts are flat one-note characters except Leotta and Hatbox. Constance being demoted to "Zombie in bride costume" kinda feels a waste and lame. She had great set up, but then lack teeth after.

There's also a ton of elements that don't make sense in retrospect.

Ok, the film makes a point when Ben goes to the ghosts' version of the house that the ghosts are imprisoned by Hatbox. They're afraid of him and avoid him. But then they're all seemingly doing his bidding as shown via Constance, the Mummy, and others trying to kill them in the finale? Well, which is it? Are they with Crump or against him???

Another point; I kinda think their take on the hitchhiking ghosts is brilliant. But... I don't get why it's there? Like, Crump calls after them saying "You'll be back" and then the ghosts attached to them are haunting them saying "Take me back". So... why do they want to go back? The Mariner is portrayed as an ally eventually so I don't think he's doing Crump's bidding so... what's going on there???

They later make a few other points that don't make sense. Leotta says Crump needs 999 souls to escape the mansion, but he only has 933, followed by a character pointing out there's been 66 deaths since. So... when did he get 933? If he needs 933 to escape the mansion, I presume he didn't collect them before he was summoned to the mansion by Leotta's seances and had a reason to collect them? Also, why is he imprisoned in the mansion at all? The Mariner and Knight are capable of following people home, why isn't Crump??? They also make a point that the mansion kinda just got built out of nothing and appeared one day... and never follow up on why? Kinda creepy hook, but the lack of follow through means it could have been cut with utterly no change.

I love Lakeith Stanfield's performance as Ben. It was emotionally arresting and fantastically done. They never make a joke of it. But... I do not buy Hatbox getting him to his emotional lowest beat for the ending. Especially since the finale seemed to be going right up until that point so... why is he pulling a Heroic Sacrifice? I just didn't buy it.

I really liked the film starting off with a beat of "Death doesn't have to be sad and miserable. In some cultures, it's a celebration and a party" and tying that to New Orleans culture. Fantastic beat. I just wish that theme resonated in the movie a bit stronger? It felt like it was there, but never developed or layered into the film's texture.

Ultimately, I think it's better than 2003 (though I don't think anything will beat 2003's production design for me), but it's got a lot of problems and I think those will kinda stick through subsequent viewings.

I think the implication is that the Hatbox Ghost did something that made him the undisputed master of the mansion and all the ghosts in it. So all the ghosts that Madame Leota summoned counted towards his number, and he can control them to some degree, he just doesn't generally bother while in the house. Like, he's clearly a threat of some sort to the other ghosts, maybe he can obliterate them or something?

That's the only explanation I can think of, but the problem is the portrayal? Like, they're still portrayed as rather malicious and taking pleasure in it. If they don't like Hatbox and other ghosts express dissatisfaction at his presence and don't want to do this, why are they murder happy cardboard cutouts at certain points?

I guess what I'm saying is that I can think of theoretical answers to these things, but the movie doesn't provide them creating an inconsistent narrative. Are the ghosts good? Are they enemies? Should I care about them at all at the end if they were gleefully seconds from murdering our heroes only a few minutes ago?

Hatbox also feels like an odd choice as a villain. I'm not sure I can reconcile his Attraction!Hatbox with Film!Hatbox. The ride version seems rather cheeky and not particularly menacing and isn't portrayed as a villain by any means in the ride's narrative, yet is Hate Sink Big Bad in the film. I suppose someone had to be a villain and this might have been a choice even in the Del Toro treatment, but still feels slightly odd. Especially if WDW is getting a copy of him seemingly in response to the film.

Count me in on finding Hatbox Ghost being the main villain of the film, but yeah I seem to recall rumors he would have been a villain even in Toro's version.

I was expecting Constance Hatchaway to be the main villain, given she's the only threatening ghost in the ride.

Was it just me, or was there a lot of Product Placement in this film?

This line was weird:

"That is my cane. I use it for... deeply personal... reasons."

Uhh... maybe my head was just in the gutter, but that sounded like a strange case of Getting Crap Past the Radar in a Disney film.

Also it took me way too long to realize that was Wynona Ryder.

The product placement was extremely excessive and possibly the worst I've seen in a movie? Like, they couldn't just have the label somewhere- No, the characters have to loudly converse about the brand they are using.

Also, I too didn't realize it was Wynnona Ryder. She looked really good. I honestly thought it was Ann Skelly from The Nevers and I was happy thinking she was getting more work. Oops.

With context I didn't find the product placement that intrusive to be honest. I mean don't we all have certain places, foods, etc. that make us nostalgic for "easier days?" I certainly do.

If I remember correctly, they cut to Ben and Kent in the car *just* for them to talk about having stopped at Burger King or something. Nothing else. Just... product placement.

You can talk about tater tots without going "Burger King branded Tater Tots; try our new meal deal now!" Blech.

I don't remember them all at this point because it's been a few weeks now but I remember being annoyed every time they dropped in a brand name for no reason.

Even on the Narm entry for the film, someone wrote how Ben explicitly mentioning Baskin Robbins as the place his deceased wife went to to get ice cream felt out of place.

Personally I think after Ant Man it's futile to have Baskin Robbins mentioned during what's supposed to be a dramatic, Tear Jerker scene.

IMO, part of the problem is that the amount of product placement is actually pretty standard...the structure of the movie just makes it extremely hard to actually include it in any way that isn't really jarring. Like, if the characters were just eating Burger King a couple times or they were just at a Baskin Robbins for a scene, most people would brush it off, but because like 90% of the movie takes place in locations where product placement basically can't happen, the result is that it has to be really in your face.

Edited by Zendervai on Aug 21st 2023 at 2:39:55 PM

Has product placement really been *that* blatant in films these days?

Like, I don't remember the last time I saw a scene with two people eating at Burger King. Maybe I'll see someone curled on a couch and eating out of a branded tub of ice cream, but usually it's never so... "Let's have a discussion and vocally discuss our brand marketing!"

I guess, yeah, the genre doesn't lend itself to product placement but so do tons of other genre films. Horror movies usually don't do that period. Fantasy movies like Dungeons and Dragons can't. Sci-fi usually can't unless it's near future or Cyberpunk genre. Usually when it's this blatant, it's often the set up to a joke or a dig at that brand?

So... Ok, I guess the question comes down to "Why is there so much brand product placement in a movie that can't really handle it without being obnoxious about it?". Why did Disney feel the need to shove so much in?

Like, we could easily have had them eating in the car with the logo of their fries and their bottles of coke and it would have been fine. It works fine in other movies. Why does it necessitate the product placement being the focus of a scene?

Edited by InkDagger on Aug 21st 2023 at 11:45:21 AM

It depends on what the deal is. In a lot of cases, the store or brand appearing prominently in the background is enough. But with Haunted Mansion, it had been shuffled around in production enough that the product placement deals likely date back to a previous version of the movie, and getting out of them is expensive. So there's a pretty decent chance that whatever arrangement had been made under a previous script wasn't viable anymore and Burger King and Baskin Robbins were like "do it like this or you have to pay us back the millions we paid you and then some."

Edited by Zendervai on Aug 21st 2023 at 2:45:07 PM

Or maybe Disney is hurting that badly in some places? They've had A LOT of flops recently, D+ is burning money, and covid hit everyone.

Even with Ant-Man, it was still kinda the joke because Baskin Robbins was presented as bottom of the barrel employment and a terrible miserable job that our hero still got fired from due to his criminal history. It makes them look bad. And it's kinda the joke later that they go "ANT MAN WORKED AT OUR STORE" when... they were the ones who fired him?

Do "THE BRANDS" not get the joke their the butt of?

Edited by InkDagger on Aug 21st 2023 at 11:46:33 AM

The brands don't really care. They just want to remind people that they exist. And Ant-Man actually really worked out for Baskin Robbins, because it was funny.

I remember someone on youtube did a video on product placement and copyrights (I thought it was Lindsay Ellis but can't find any such video of hers) and at one point said that theoretically The Cheesecake Factory could sue CBS for its depiction of the place on "The Big Bang Theory" because they make it look like a slum restaurant... but because business went up after the place was showcased on the series, even though it's a poor representation, why bother suing?

Idk. I feel like that "We don't care if we're the butt of the joke" is going to bite them in the as- I mean, butt sooner or later.

At some point, it's going to be enough that it does really remind people these places can be shitty and it's going to be really funny but not in a way they can laugh off.

I wonder if it'd even be a sound legal case since, hypothetically, corps would be cherry picking when they did or didn't like a joke. Similar to the issues with defending your copyrights, I feel like the case could fall flat if they let some jokes slide and others they'd get offended over.

Granted, we're talking extreme hypotheticals here, but amusing idea.

And, yes, Lindsay Ellis did do a video essay on "THE BRAND" TM, but I don't know if it was that one you're talking about.

...Seems like we've gotten away from the topic here. The thread is about this specific movie, not "Product Placement is bad."

I'm wondering if they'll try to make changes to the rides to incorporate elements from this movie. I know Florida's supposed to have the Hatbox Ghost added to the Endless Hallway, but he's yet to materialize, although you can see in this video the curtains blocking off where his animatronic will be installed:

(And I'm guessing that this Hatbox Ghost will probably not look like the movie version and look more like California's version.)

Edited by dmcreif on Aug 23rd 2023 at 8:55:27 AM

Anybody know when it's coming to Disney+ again?

Wednesday, I think.

Cool. I figured it'd be for October certainly.

Sad I missed it in the theater—and that it didn't do better. Excited to still watch it though despite that.

Edited by futuremoviewriter on Oct 1st 2023 at 2:56:00 AM