The New Voice of Tinker Bell - seriously

[MouseHouse55]

Hey everyone. If this has already been announced, I missed it, but Disney has officially decided on the voice for Tinkerbell in her upcoming animated film. Brittany Murphy has been cast as the voice of this particular pixie. I have no opinion on this I guess as many people sound very different in voice-over roles. Anyway, hope this is good news to some and at least interesting news to others.

[Billy Moon]

When did Tinkerbell learn to talk and how did that happen?

[Disney-Fan]

The fact that a voice was even announced is very upsetting, to say the least. She was a classy character because despite not talking her emotions were quite vividly portrayed. Oh well, there goes more potential down the pipe.

[2099net]

*sigh* One again, I feel the need to do a pre-emptive "Stop being mean to Brittany Murphy". I know it's fashionable to mock her, but she is a very talented voice over artist. And I'm in love with her.

As for her voice, Tinker Bell (do I get bonus points for spelling it as two words Luke, like "Never Land" ? ) still cannot "speak" when communicating with humans, but being as the movie is involving other fairies/pixies (I'm sure technically she is a pixie) its only natural she can speak and communicate with them.

No one complained when the Aristocats all spoke English instead of French This is the same - a film simply couldn't work if the main characters communicated in pantomime for its entire run time. So the question shouldn't be "Should Tinker Bell talk?" but "Should The Tinker Bell Movie be made?"

[Billy Moon]

a film simply couldn't work if the main characters communicated in pantomime for its entire run time.

What about Dumbo?

So the question shouldn't be "Should Tinker Bell talk?" but "Should The Tinker Bell Movie be made?"

My answer to both questions would be "Never".

[2099net]

a film simply couldn't work if the main characters communicated in pantomime for its entire run time.

What about Dumbo?

Dumbo was one character. And Timothy Mouse pretty much spoke for Dumbo to the audience, even if he was just questioning/repeating his interperatations of Dumbo's moods and wishes at times (just to clarify things to the audience).

Dumbo was cast as an outsider. Tinker Bell (in the movie) is going to be part of a society.

[Billy Moon]

It would be much more interesting if they didn't talk. Of course it would work if they did it well.

[2099net]

Well, like I say. If they have decided to do a Tinker Bell movie, to promote a range of Disney Fairy merchandise, then this is the only way they could do it. But the question should be "Should this movie be made?"

Personally, I'm happy to wait and see. I'm not the target demographic anyhow. People report that the line of merchandise, especially the books, are good and of high quality, so who knows, perhaps Disney are doing something right.

My only concern is that this may be a sneaky way for Disney to evade paying The Great Ormand Street Hospital - there's still the ongoing case about the Hyperion (nee Disney) book, and it seems wrong to [a] launch a line of goods based on Tinker Bell and make an actual movie (even if it is a DTV) while this case is still ongoing.

I would find it hard to drum up any support for the movie if I found out Disney weren't paying the Hospital. Even if the copyright has expired (the crux of the court case) and legally they have no obligation to pay, I still think they have a moral obligation to pay something (especially as Disney is one of the major lobbyists for the seemingly ongoing copyright extension acts to protect their business)

[Billy Moon]

Didn't the copyright of Peter Pan become public domain some years ago already?

Personally I don't care wheter they make a Tinkerbell movie or not and how it turns out. I've learned some time ago not to care about the current "disney" products. It's not worth it. But it's still fun to debate.

[2099net]

Didn't the copyright of Peter Pan become public domain some years ago already?

Its all very complicated, as with most things legal. The copyright on the short story has, and depending on where in the world you are it has on Peter Pan itself.

But many characters are in the public domain, but still protected by law.

One argument is, the characters are in the public domain, and can be used freely (such as, say, Sherlock Holmes can). The other argument is; yes, you can reproduce the original text and story, as its Public Domin, but we have the rights to the characters as they are part of a series of "ongoing" stories. This is way GOSH comissioned an "official" sequel novel.

This is how characters like Felix can be said to still be in "copyright", even though the original shorts are no-longer in copyright. Even several Disney and Warner Bros cartoon characters have shorts in the public domain - even Mickey Mouse (in The Mad Doctor) and don't forget - technically Pete is in the Public Domain as he's in the Public Domain Alice Comedies - but you sure as hell wouldn't get away with making your own cartoons featuring them. Some Oswald shorts are in the Public Domain. These being the some of the ones created after Disney lost the rights. But again Disney (now) owns copyright on the character.

The fact that the case hasn't been rejected yet, shows it's not a simple black/white matter, and both arguments have legal merit. (Plus, in the UK at least, Peter Pan [the story] will never be Public Domain - and that includes Tinker Bell, as I beleive she wasn't in the original short story which is public domain, and was created especially for the play)

[Disney-Fan]

*sigh* One again, I feel the need to do a pre-emptive "Stop being mean to Brittany Murphy". I know it's fashionable to mock her, but she is a very talented voice over artist. And I'm in love with her.

lol, I never mocked her. I mocked the idea that a character like Tinkerbell could speak, with fairies or otherwise. It's not the same as The Aristocats, and I think you know it. It's quite a weak comparission.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

Yeah, when did Tinker Bell learn to talk? No offense, but I think that Peter Pan was taken off of the Platinum line because of this stupid movie where faerie's talk, where in the past they didn't. I find this movie to be pointless, and the death of a Peter Pan star.

Disney:

[Elladorine]

I'm taking the wait and see attitude on this one myself-- I was very opposed to the idea until I saw how wonderful the fairy egg book is.

As for whether or not she should speak. . . I think a fair comparison would be the films that show animals speaking English amongst each other, but suddenly speak "animal" when surrounded by humans. I totally see the fairies speaking English with each other for the sake of the audence, but if they were around Peter Pan for example, they'd be speaking in bells and chimes.

That's just my two cents though.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I mocked the idea that a character like Tinkerbell could speak, with fairies or otherwise. It's not the same as The Aristocats, and I think you know it. It's quite a weak comparission.

Well, what would you rather see?

A movie where pixes just pantomime to each other where the audience wouldn't understand more than half of what's going on, or a film with talking fairies so you'd at least you'd know what's going on.

[Christian]

I know it's fashionable to mock her

Funny, since I don't think anybody has mocked Brittany Murphy in this thread.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

When did Tinkerbell learn to talk and how did that happen?

She didn't learn to talk english, she speaks in her own fairy language that we are able to hear as english.
It's like saying;"When did Lady learn to talk?". We only hear her bark when people are around, but when she's with Tramp we have to understand what they're saying and that's why she speaks english. It makes sense to me!!!

[Disney-Fan]

Well, what would you rather see?

A movie where pixes just pantomime to each other where the audience wouldn't understand more than half of what's going on

Well, yes. Since that would be a first, and it would be a creative and original choice for an animated film. And if dialouge is a must (I admit, doing a film with few words is complicated), then why not have some creatures like in Dumbo that express the emotions of the main character/s? Honestly, going behind Disney for every stupid choice they make has become a bit tiresome. I'm not one to complain, but things like this really irritate me.

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Well, yes. Since that would be a first, and it would be a creative and original choice for an animated film. And if dialouge is a must (I admit, doing a film with few words is complicated), then why not have some creatures like in Dumbo that express the emotions of the main character/s? Honestly, going behind Disney for every stupid choice they make has become a bit tiresome. I'm not one to complain, but things like this really irritate me.

It may be creative and original, but Disney has done a lot "creative" and "original" stuff of recent, but people couldn't find it, instead, they found it in "Shrek" and "Finding Nemo". Examples: Treasure Planet was knocked because it was "too different" to be a Disney film, yet it was very creative by trying to take a classic story and adding a twist to it, much more originality than any other film recently I can think of. Teacher's Pet: The Movie was well-revied and was hailed as "creative", but look how well that turned out. So yeah, Disney NEEDS to be original and creative, it has worked "wonderfully" recently.

Have you ever considered Disney has tried to make a movie about non-talking pixies, but found out there was no way for it to work without letting the kids get bored? I mean even if someone like Peter Pan narrated it, it still wouldn't improve it. As AFA said, nobody needed to narrate what the dogs said in "Lady and the Tramp" so why does it need to here?

I'm not trying to convince Disney is perfect and everything they've done of divine, there's no denying they HAVE made some bad decisions in the past. But in the end, I strongly think Disney has gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much unfair criticism in recent years, and that the people saying Disney's choices are "stupid" don't even bother to look at the positives. I mean, some attacks at Disney are so stupid, they don't even make sense. It's like no matter what, "Disney is evil". Even if Disney does what the crowd wants them to, THEY STILL get knocked and knocked again.

Now, I actually don't have much of an interest in this movie, or this franchise, but I don't see a problem with giving Tinkerbell a voice. You know, countless other characters(even some not in the Disney-canon) have had MUCH worse "travesties" to them than that. And giving pixies voices work in this concept(as other people stated) and the idea sounds pretty original, so why can't it turn out to be at least decent? Maybe even a very good surprise?

[cydney]

Blah! I don't think Tinkerbell should talk just because she gets her own movie, it will just be weird after all this time of not talking. It always ruins a character for me when I hear them talk after expecting them to sound different.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

As AFA said, nobody needed to narrate what the dogs said in "Lady and the Tramp" so why does it need to here?

This is something that nobody here wants to think about, because in this case, there would be no reason for us to argue; and we're really good at that!!
Tinker Bell does not speak in the first movie, because her companions are not fairies- her race- but humen!! She does speak actually, but a very diferrent language, that is simply translated in that sequel. And if you people know so much about how a succesful movie can be made, try and give some efficient solution to this "problem", just to motivate the Disney people reconsider!! Any-serious-suggestions about how a movie with mute fairies could work????
Oh, and if you're against that movie, just ignore it and leave us in peace!