Keep Lumpy In The New 2011 Winnie the Pooh Movie!

All topics relating to Disney-branded content.
goofystitch
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Walt Disney World

Post by goofystitch »

Neal wrote:
B) Sorry, but once again the 'adult fans' will be neglected:

"DCP will focus merchandise strategy on moms of infants and toddlers, with a secondary focus on women."

If DCP is merchandising to that crowd, expect that the film will, too.
Yes, that is the demographic who would purchase merchandise. I'm talking about the fans of the film itself. It's being made by Walt Disney Animation Studios who make their films for everybody, not just kids, so the adult fans won't be neglected in this film. I don't care what merchandise comes out or who it is geared towards. I care about the film.
And there's nothing wrong with encouraging WDAS one way or another. We encouraged them to stop DTVs, so why not then let them know what to do with the canon films?
Actually, no we didn't. All of our complaints and petitions fell on deaf ears. The DTV sequels were hugely lucrative so they wouldn't listen to die hard Disney fans who hated them when there were millions to be made from them. The reason that most DTV sequels were stopped is because of John Lasseter and his attempts to strengthen the Disney brand. And even a force to be reckoned with like him couldn't stop all of Disney Toon Studios projects, mainly the Disney Fairies films and the Enchanted Tales series, which may or may not be dead. Honestly, I think the main reason they agreed with his ban on DTV sequels is because they had exhausted the franchises that were easy to sequelize.

Obviously Lasseter isn't anti-sequel. He just holds Disney as a brand to higher standards than what we received with films like Pooh's Heffalump Movie. A lot of people on this forum are very quick to scrutinize and bash Lasseter, but I'm really glad he is in charge. People can claim that he is "sucking the imagination out of Disney," but what more could we ask as Disney fans? He is overseeing a return to hand drawn animated musicals and is delivering a real sequel to a beloved classic, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh.

Again, I'm not anti-Lumpy. If he is in the new movie, I'm not going to be angry, but if I had any say in the planning of the film, I would personally leave him out. He's not WDAS cannon. He is Disney Toon Studios cannon. It's like the various levels of cannon for Star Wars fans. WDAS cannon trumps all other cannons.
User avatar
Neal
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:40 am

Post by Neal »

I think WDAS is just making merchandise films these days.

Higher quality merchandise films, but merchandise films all the same.

Want to tell me why Disney Consumer Products announced a new canon Disney film, and not WDAS themselves (they still haven't and it's been more than a week).

I only even found out it was officially from WDAS by e-mailing Disney myself.

I think "The Princess and the Frog" is also a vehicle for merchandise. In fact, I've read many reviews from those who saw test showings and they said the same thing. This film is great, better than what Disney has done in some time, but it really forces the princess-ness more than any other princess films and therefore is not quite as magical as the earlier princess films.

Don't forget, the Disney Princess line didn't exist when Aladdin (the last officially official 'Princess' film came out, unless you count Mulan) was released.

It was invented since that time.

So those films were made as art. I think TPatF has advertisements woven into it. Little girls dress as princesses, are told princess stories, have princess dolls - and then - become princesses (at least, one does). Sounds like little girl Disney fans, to me.

Tiana and Charlotte are poster children for the renewed Disney Princess merchandising push.

This new Pooh film is to assist in a renewed Pooh merchandise push.

Disney is no longer art. Yes, the films are good, but they are thinly veiled disguises to sell product. More so than ever.

I don't think 'sell product' was in mind during Beauty and the Beast, Lilo & Stitch, or any of Walt's films. But that is the mindset now, and the films will take a hit for it.

Let's look at the Disney/Pixar line-up through 2012:

2009: Up/The Princess and the Frog
2010: Toy Story 3/Rapunzel
2011: Cars 2/Winnie the Pooh/Bear and the Bow
2012: Newt/King of the Elves

...9 films.

Now, how many are from a Disney Consumer Products merchandise line?

5.

Three for the princess line.
One for the Pooh line.
One for the Toy Story line.
One for the Cars line.

So more than half the films in the next four years are directly tied to a DCP franchise, and a third are sequels.

I think WDAS has sold out. They are still making nice films. I loved BOLT and Meet the Robinsons. I am ecstatic for The Princess and the Frog. Don't get me wrong. But they are now making films with one thing in mind: will this character sell shampoo, will it look good on a T-Shirt, can we make a plush out of it?

If Monster's Inc. 2 is real, that further proves it. That film was secretly announced to licensees so they could begin to think of products. If it exists, why not tell we fans, as well? We'd like to know so we can speculate and discuss!

Long point made short: DCP and WDAS are now sharing the same bed. So, if DCP wants to target preschoolers with its new Pooh merchandise, it's going to influence WDAS to create a new Pooh geared towards toddlers.

Ratatouille merchandise was put on the clearance chopping block within weeks of the film's release. Wouldn't you think that the merchandise would be given a boost by the release? It was because Ratatouille was too adult. I'm sure DCP is whispering in Lasseter's ear to make the new Pooh film more kiddy, because that will sell merchandise. They won't want a more adult-oriented Pooh film when they have new kid-oriented toys to sell.

And don't think they don't have sway. I'm sure Lasseter is only begrudgingly working on the TinkerBell films, as much as he feigns excitement.

The great thing (I think) about Lumpy is he's one of Disney's few children characters. Not a teen, or tween, he's an actual young kid. Sure, we had Bambi, and Dumbo, and Tod and Copper - they all grew up. Lumpy transcends them because he's not real, he's a stuffed animal, so he will be a kid forevermore, while Disney's other kid characters grew up.

Secondly, you think Lasseter would have stopped the DTVs if we liked them? No. If fans were filling forums saying "these DTVs are great", I'm sure he would have let them be, however much he disliked them.

Yes, he wants to preserve Walt's legacy, but at the same time - I bet there was pressure not to end the DTVs.

There was a lot of fanfare when he announced the end. By whom? Forums and bloggers. Did Iger ever come out and say 'this is a great day for Disney?' (if he did, I totally missed it)

Iger exists to serve the stockholders, not Disneyana fans. He knew the DTVs were making billions for the company. Losing them has left a sizable hole in their income, I'm sure. Not enough to knock them from their spot as entertainment leader, but money is money even when you're on top.

I'm sure he felt his hands were tied. This was a man who'd in the long run save Disney animation (it seemed) - so he shouldn't argue with him about ending the DTVs, however, ideally, they would have remained and continued to make Disney stacks of cash.

Third, to me, all Disney is canon and connects. Be it the theme parks, theatrical films, home premiere, books - all of it is authorized by someone inside Disney so all of it connects to me. That's why I began the website in my signature (but haven't had time to update).

Last but not least, I wasn't going to encourage discussion on this thread one way or another - with me or against me - I just wanted to notify others of the petition and not muddy up the thread with positive or negative. Looks like we're well into conversation now, which, I was going to try to avoid.
User avatar
pap64
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:57 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Post by pap64 »

You do realize that Lumpy was created just so Disney could create more character based Winnie the Pooh merchandise, right?

In an article by Jim Hill it was revealed that Disney Consumer Products wanted to create a new Winnie the Pooh character that was cute and could push merchandise. So Lumpy was born. He has all of the qualifications of a highly merchandisable character, whether you believe it or not.

As for Disney "selling out"... You really should pay more attention to your Disney history.

Even since the days of God, erm I mean Walt Disney the studio has created merchandise based on its properties. When Mickey became really popular they made lots of toys and merchandise based on him. The money proved vital in the creation of new projects.

When Snow White was released dolls, toys and even records were released alongside the film.

Tinker Bell sold Peanut Butter. Alice sold Jell-O. Mickey sold EVERYTHING. The fab four also had their huge share of merchandise, including Happy Meal Toys, Burger King Toys, videogames and much, much more.

The sad reality is that ALL film studios make films for profit. Its what keeps the studios running, people working and, most importantly, creativity alive. Do they go overboard with the tie ins? Yes. Are some films made to keep a franchise alive? Yes. Do they make them any less good? Of course not.

Disney has not changed this. They created merchandise when Uncle Walt was head of the studio, they created merchandise when Michael Eisner was head of the studio and merchandise will still be made with Lasseter on board.

I'm sorry, Neal, but what I smell is the typical Disney fanboy angst simply because someone from Pixar had to come in and guide Disney into the future. Your arguments are weak.
ImageImageImageImage

Image
Mr. Toad
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4360
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 8:49 pm
Location: Victoria, BC
Contact:

Post by Mr. Toad »

Is there a petition to keep him out of the movie?
Disneyland Trips - 07/77, 07/80, 07/83, 05/92, 05/96, 05/97, 06/00, 11/00, 02/02, 06/02, 11/02, 04/06, 01/07, 07/07, 11/07,11/08, 07/09

Disneyworld Trips - 01/05

Disney Cruise - 01/05

Six Flags DK - 03/09, 05/09. 06/09, 07/09
User avatar
Neal
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:40 am

Post by Neal »

Disney fanboy angst? I'm a fan of both Pixar and Disney equally.

And I'm not against marketing, or merchandising. I am going away to college this fall for advertising and wouldn't mind ending up at a place like DCP. :lol:

Perhaps that's why I like Lumpy. He has marketing appeal. I'm going to become an advertiser. Maybe not appeal to adults or Disneyana fans, but kids definitely like him. Sure, he's not a 'classic Pooh' character, but if he was in the 1977 film, no one would have complained. The problem with 'true Disney fans' is they are all so retroactive. "What would Walt have done?" "That character wasn't in the old films, so he shouldn't exist."

I'm proactive. I look for ways to draw together the old and the new. I hate reboots, or sequels that ignore characters completely. I'm all about merging both sides. My belief is that people are always blinded by nostalgia. No one complained about Gopher being added when he wasn't in the Milne book. If Gopher wasn't in the 1977 film, but was in the DTVs, would anyone like him as much? Say you would all you want but I don't believe it.

What happens in franchises like Disney's (but also franchises like your beloved Mario) is nostalgia overrides common sense.

Matt Cassamina whined about the bee suit in Super Mario Galaxy. It was 'lame' and 'childish'. Wait but a frog suit, raccoon suit, and sitting in a giant boot weren't equally childish? He was simply overcome by nostalgia and didn't think it through.

Fans of Mario are decrying Super Mario Galaxy 2. "Can't wait for this DLC, wait, it's a game? Nintendo can't try to charge me for this clone of the first game!"

They are so overcome by the nostalgic fact that every Mario game they ever got (in the U.S., at least) was different, revolutionary. Yoshi's Island was a big change from Super Mario World, as was Super Mario 64 a huge change. When Nintendo finally gives a sequel that's not revolutionary, but is just that - a sequel - it has enraged fanboys blinded by nostalgia.

I see through all that. The bee suit takes its place next to the Tanooki suit and frog suit. Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a sequel, just like Halo 2 was. Not all sequels have to be revolutions, they can sometimes just be more of the same good stuff.

I created a rule for this which I call "Patten's Law of Order" - essentially, what comes first is what you like.

If Lumpy had been in the 1977 film, than people would be rallying behind me "yeah, keep him in, he's classic Pooh". The simple fact he's from the DTV is why so many hate him. Same goes for a character like Owl. If Owl was a byproduct of DTVs, no one would want him in this film, "he's a part of Eisner's administration! Don't use him!"

Whatever comes first is what you fall in love with, and you close your heart to anything new or any changes.

Basically, you rely on the terms 'DTV' and 'Disney classic' to dictate your feelings, not your own heart.

So, we don't need to be asking "What would Walt have done?" or saying "Only the 1977 film counts". I bet more kids today would recognize characters from the DTVs or "My Friends Tigger & Pooh" before they recognize anything from the original.

And that's who this film will be marketed to - kids. What do you find in Disney Stores? Plushes, children's clothing, toys. The pins and collectibles are online because that's niche. So this film will do what it needs to do to sell those plushes, clothes, and toys. It won't worry so much about the hourglass, porcelain figure, or pin online.

I know Lumpy is a product of wanting a new character who'd sell well. However, others were trying to state that since DTVs were all about the money, Lumpy shouldn't come near the more pure 'classics'. I'm trying to say the classics are no longer so pure, they too are tainted by greed for money now and are just as much a vehicle for merchandising as the DTVs were/are.

My point was this: yes, all Disney films since Snow White's premiere in 1937 have been marketed and made into merchandise.

However, with those films, I truly believe it was movie first, merchandise second. In the end: art.

If the film was successful, it could carry a brand.

Nowadays it seems as if it's merchandise first, movie second. In the end: a vehicle for products.

A movie must be able to carry a Disney brand or it won't be made.

That's a huge difference.

I mean, it wasn't until 2000 Disney had the idea of merchandising their princesses dawn on them:

"In early 2000, when Andy Mooney was hired by Disney's Consumer Products division to help combat dropping sales, the idea for the Disney Princess franchise was born. Soon after joining Disney, Mooney attended his first Disney on Ice show. While waiting in line, he found himself surrounded by young girls dressed as princesses. “They weren’t even Disney products. They were generic princess products,” he mused. Soon after realizing the demand, the Disney Princess line was formed."

That means Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, despite any tie-ins, were made as artistic endeavors first and foremost

Now, for TPatF, all they hark on is how it will sell the new princess merchandise.

There's been a shift. It's blatantly obvious.
User avatar
Escapay
Ultimate Collector's Edition
Posts: 12562
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Somewhere in Time and Space
Contact:

Post by Escapay »

Neal wrote:It's in the letter to Disney.
Then you should have clarified that in your reply to goofystitch.
Neal wrote:And this is a thread for Lumpy lovers. If you don't like him, don't sign the petition, but no need to tell me about it. I know there are those who don't like the character, but, there are those who do.
And where in my post did I say I did not like Lumpy?

I said he is an adorable character, and I bought his movie based simply on five random minutes I saw at Once Upon A toy. I don't do that often, so there must have been *something* I liked about the movie and character.

I honestly don't care if he's in it or not (cause I can still enjoy his first movie). I simply stated (and will state again) that if Lasseter & Co. intend to bring WDAS back to their roots and have a Pooh film in the vein of the 1960s shorts/1977 film (essentially "theatrical characters only"), then it is only logical that Lumpy, lovable as he is, not be in the next theatrical Pooh film as he's part of the DTV films.
Neal wrote:Frankly, none of this needed discussion.
Perhaps you can put a link in your signature and bump up "Explain Your Siggy" to say, "I made a petition to keep Lumpy in the 2011 Pooh Film, sign it if you want!" Making a thread for it immediately invites discussion.
Neal wrote:I think WDAS is just making merchandise films these days.

Higher quality merchandise films, but merchandise films all the same.
All studios make merchandise films. Disney is no different, nor have they ever been. The only difference is that because this is a Disney-focused board, fans are more scrutinizing and criticizing of every single Disney product out there.
Neal wrote:Want to tell me why Disney Consumer Products announced a new canon Disney film, and not WDAS themselves (they still haven't and it's been more than a week).
Because the film is still in development and WDAS don't want all the details on their upcoming projects known to the public?

Because merch needs just as much r&d time as the filmmakers in order for products to accurately reflect the film?

Because the announcement likely was just for merch manufacturers and it got leaked simply because of the sheer overzealous nature of Disney fanatics?

I could go on and on...
Neal wrote:I don't think 'sell product' was in mind during Beauty and the Beast, Lilo & Stitch, or any of Walt's films.
When Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin came out, I always remember seeing products aplenty for them in the stores. My younger brother had Aladdin action figures (I didn't, as I collected Star Trek), Aladdin bedsheets, and all of us had an Aladdin poster in our room. I had a couple Beauty and the Beast comic books, my sister got a Beauty and the Beast board game for Christmas 1992, "A Whole New World" was almost always on the radio, both Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin played on store TVs for practically a month when their VHS's came out. In the parks, there was a brand new stage show for Beauty and the Beast and a parade for Aladdin. For any kid older than 4, 1992 and 1993 were definitely the years of Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin. Even if BATB came out in 1991, in my experience it didn't really have big merch pushes until 1992.

There were all these efforts to sell the movie, and if you sold the movie, chances are you can sell products that are tied in to the movie. It's no different now than it was 16/17 years ago.
Neal wrote:If it exists, why not tell we fans, as well? We'd like to know so we can speculate and discuss!
Because for that very reason (in bold), fans are sometimes the worst thing to happen to a movie (or to any popular franchise). Just watch Fanboys (a group of friends try to break into Skywalker Ranch to see Star Wars: Episode 1 before the rest of the world) to see how far some will go.

Consequently, there's a longtime saying among theme park castmembers that's along the line of, "Working in the parks would be so much better if we could just get rid of the guests." The guests are what keep the park functioning, so castmembers have to deal with them, good and bad. Likewise with Disney films, it's the fans that ultimately are the backbone of a film's success. Disney has to deal with them, good or bad. Vocal minorities can have just as much an effect as a silent majority, which is one of the many reasons that Disney actually has people employed who do nothing but read the various Disney forums online and report their findings to marketing and consumer relations. For goodness sake, UD even has BVHE-Rep, a member who posts very infrequently and is an actual representative of BVHE (now WDSHE).
Neal wrote:Long point made short: DCP and WDAS are now sharing the same bed.
Of course they are. Both answer to the Walt Disney Company, and WDC answers to shareholders. They have to make products that will sell to keep the shareholders happy. Whether or not one influences the other is moot, it's all still just business to them.
pap64 wrote:You do realize that Lumpy was created just so Disney could create more character based Winnie the Pooh merchandise, right?

In an article by Jim Hill it was revealed that Disney Consumer Products wanted to create a new Winnie the Pooh character that was cute and could push merchandise. So Lumpy was born. He has all of the qualifications of a highly merchandisable character, whether you believe it or not.

As for Disney "selling out"... You really should pay more attention to your Disney history.

Even since the days of God, erm I mean Walt Disney the studio has created merchandise based on its properties. When Mickey became really popular they made lots of toys and merchandise based on him. The money proved vital in the creation of new projects.

When Snow White was released dolls, toys and even records were released alongside the film.

Tinker Bell sold Peanut Butter. Alice sold Jell-O. Mickey sold EVERYTHING. The fab four also had their huge share of merchandise, including Happy Meal Toys, Burger King Toys, videogames and much, much more.

The sad reality is that ALL film studios make films for profit. Its what keeps the studios running, people working and, most importantly, creativity alive. Do they go overboard with the tie ins? Yes. Are some films made to keep a franchise alive? Yes. Do they make them any less good? Of course not.

Disney has not changed this. They created merchandise when Uncle Walt was head of the studio, they created merchandise when Michael Eisner was head of the studio and merchandise will still be made with Lasseter on board.
Well said, pap.
Mr. Toad wrote:Is there a petition to keep him out of the movie?
No, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone started one just to be cheeky.
Neal wrote:Disney fanboy angst? I'm a fan of both Pixar and Disney equally.
One can be a fan of both and still have fanboy angst.
Neal wrote:The problem with 'true Disney fans' is they are all so retroactive.
And the problem with new Disney fans is they assume the "true Disney fans" are nostalgic elitists.
Neal wrote:Whatever comes first is what you fall in love with, and you close your heart to anything new or any changes.
Not necessarily.

I visited Disneyland in 1989, then Walt Disney World in 1991, and I will always prefer Walt Disney World.

The first Disney movie I ever saw was likely Cinderella (as it was one of our earliest VHS's), and there's plenty of others I enjoy more.

I always loved Spaceship Earth at Epcot, and even though the ride's changed several times since I first rode it, I have not complained about it (yet).

I prefer the new "Doctor Who" (which I started watching in 2006) to the classic "Doctor Who" (which I vaguely remember watching random episodes of as a kid when it came on late at night on PBS).
Neal wrote:Basically, you rely on the terms 'DTV' and 'Disney classic' to dictate your feelings, not your own heart.
What does one's heart have to do with the difference in quality between DTV films versus WDAS films?

I have very little love for the "classic" known as The Lion King (for a variety of reasons, but "It's a popular movie, so I'll hate it to be different" is certainly not one of them) and would rather watch The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride (I enjoy its story and characters more), yet in your logic, because I'm a nostalgic Disney fan...I'm supposed to love The Lion King more? :roll:
Neal wrote:So, we don't need to be asking "What would Walt have done?" or saying "Only the 1977 film counts".
Yes, we do.

Just because we're older Disney fans, and not the pre-high-school target audience doesn't mean we're not allowed to speculate and discuss. I kinda thought that was the whole point of this board.

Why can't we discuss what Walt would have done? Isn't the whole point of a messageboard to have these (and many other) types of discussion?

Why can't people have their own personal film canons and say only one movie or another counts? In my personal canon, I've got The Three Musketeers on the shelf between Brother Bear and Home on the Range rather than in the DTV section.

The problem is when people sometimes think their own opinion is the only one that counts and everyone else should change and agree with them, and I've been guilty of this just as much as you have and every other member on UD.
Neal wrote:My point was this: yes, all Disney films since Snow White's premiere in 1937 have been marketed and made into merchandise.

However, with those films, I truly believe it was movie first, merchandise second. In the end: art.

If the film was successful, it could carry a brand.

Nowadays it seems as if it's merchandise first, movie second. In the end: a vehicle for products.
I predict that 25 years from now, a young Disney fan will likely say, "In the days of Bolt and The Princess and the Frog, it was all about the art and movie...now it's just about the merchandise!"

albert
WIST #60:
AwallaceUNC: Would you prefer Substi-Blu-tiary Locomotion? :p

WIST #61:
TheSequelOfDisney: Damn, did Lin-Manuel Miranda go and murder all your families?
Wonderlicious
Diamond Edition
Posts: 4661
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Wonderlicious »

Let me say that I do not want to necessarily rain on anyone's parade in this message.
Neal wrote:If Lumpy had been in the 1977 film, than people would be rallying behind me "yeah, keep him in, he's classic Pooh". The simple fact he's from the DTV is why so many hate him. Same goes for a character like Owl. If Owl was a byproduct of DTVs, no one would want him in this film, "he's a part of Eisner's administration! Don't use him!"
I think part of the anti-Lumpy sentiment is to do with the fact that he wasn't an A.A. Milne character to begin with. As a Brit who likes the original stories, I see Lumpy as a bit of a cash-in character, but also Gopher as a fairly fun yet ultimately unnecessary character, and probably would prefer to have the likes of Owl etc in if I were making the movie.

Of course, pretty much every Disney film adapted from a previously existing story has added a new character or two, even those based on longer works like Alice in Wonderland and The Jungle Book. And obviously, most of the Disney sequels (and yes, even The Rescuers Down Under) were pretty much original stories with "old friends". And there have been many tie-ins which feature adapted characters in new stories, so I know technically I can't object to Lumpy or this new Pooh movie. Quite frankly, even though I don't think I'd see this film when it came out, I simply hope Christopher Robin will be in it, as the fact that he was replaced by a two year-old girl in the Disney Channel series was probably the most disrespectful Disney has been thus far of A.A. Milne and his original works.
Neal wrote:That means Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin, despite any tie-ins, were made as artistic endeavors first and foremost

Now, for TPatF, all they hark on is how it will sell the new princess merchandise.

There's been a shift. It's blatantly obvious.
As Escapay said, all those films had huge amounts of merchandise. I can imagine the amount of merchandise probably being higher stateside, but even in the UK (and no doubt the rest of Europe), Disney merchandise was inescapable; for one thing, most of the best selling VHS titles in the UK were Disney ones, and through the eyes of a seven year old, any Disney animated classic on video seemed like an item that one's life depended on. My brother and I had huge amounts of Aladdin merchandise, and if we had a sister, buckets full of Beauty and the Beast and Little Mermaid merchandise (which we did have a bit of anyway, especially as far as the former is concerned); I remember so many girls who had Ariel and Belle dolls, as well as Belle's XYZ and Ariel's XYZ.

And even back then, cute funny characters were being thrown in to make the films commercially viable. I doubt we wouldn't have had the following characters brought out to such prominence were it not for a pressuring executive or two: Flounder, Sebastian, Max the dog, Scuttle, Mrs Potts, Chip, Lumiere, Abu, Raja, the Magic Carpet, Timon, Pumbaa, Flik, Meeko...and lest we not forget those gargoyles in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. :P
User avatar
Neal
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:40 am

Post by Neal »

Escapay - You're a pretty rare breed to have some old likes, and some new likes.

Most people play the 'party line' on forums.

Surely, you know of the old Star Trek vs. new Star Trek fans - and that it's largely split, with few who are on both sides.

Nintendo fanboys are often like that - hating the Xbox and PlayStation simply because they're not Nintendo systems.

One of my favorite video games - Spyro the Dragon - was rebooted. Now we have pre-reboot fans vs. post-reboot fans.

There's the great Mac. vs. PC techies.

Or even here. There's a lot of people who hate DreamWorks just because it's DreamWorks - bashing the studio without having seen its recent films (myself included in that category).

So while you may be one of the few who isn't like that, the internet is overpopulated by 'this way or that way only' types - those who can't blur the lines.

And I didn't mean we can't *discuss* WWWD (What Would Walt Do?), but it shouldn't dictate us or Disney. You don't see Ford still saying "What would Henry Ford have done?" or even Apple is relying less on Steve Job's input due to his failing health. Disney is unique in that they're one of the few companies who decades later still are hinged to what their founder would have done. No disrespect meant to Walt Disney, but, we've got to move on and think for ourselves today (I'm referring to the Disney company itself). We can discuss it, but, I don't think the company should be so tied to that belief still. I see it as a hindrance.

I know there has always been merchandise, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm simply saying back then there may have been as many toys as today, yes, but they were still not quite as worried about if the film supported the toys - they made the film to be a film, not an advertisement.

I still think the emphasis on merchandising is worse today to the point they make an advertisement over a film.

"Sleeping Beauty" was not the financial success Walt Disney had hoped for at the time. Rather than begin analyzing what went wrong or anything along those lines, he just began work on the next film, knowing that one day the film would make back its money.

That mindset would not exist today.

If TPatF fails - they'll begin proclaiming things. 2D is dead (CGI only from now on), theatrical princess films are dead (DTV releases only from now on), etc. They wouldn't let it be and sort itself out.

Perhaps, one day, I'll put more research into this than pure conjecture (for say, a thesis on the way out of my advertising program) - but I stick by what I said - Disney is more worried about the films advertising products than they used to be.
goofystitch
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Walt Disney World

Post by goofystitch »

Neal wrote:
I'm simply saying back then there may have been as many toys as today, yes, but they were still not quite as worried about if the film supported the toys - they made the film to be a film, not an advertisement.
Ok. So that's why the marketing efforts for all of these films billed them as "From the makers of (insert recent popular Disney film here)" or "the (insert cannon number here) animated classic." That's why fast food tie-in commercials in the late 80's/throughout the 90's promoted both the chain and the film. That's why commercials were played on Saturday morning cartoons for products from the film. And that also must be why many of the films from the era you keep referencing had TV show spin-offs (The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, Timon & Pumba).

You keep saying that Disney films are no longer art and only serve the purpose of moving merchandise and as escapay and others have pointed out, all studios make films with the hopes of selling merchandise and that this is nothing new at Disney. However, you are going to far with your claims. Disney knows that these films will be around for generations. They aren't stupid. They are going to make them with quality. So maybe DCP will step in with suggestions on Princess Tiana's clothing so that it is possible for them to replicate it on dolls and children's costumes. So what? Big deal! It has nothing to do with the story.

If Disney wants to make a film about two girls who dream of being princesses and at the end one become a princess, that's fine. Disney films have always tried to play to modern tastes and to what is popular. The fact that The Princess and the Frog is going to move a lot of merchandise shouldn't matter as long as its a great film, which none of us can critique yet since we haven't seen it.
"Sleeping Beauty" was not the financial success Walt Disney had hoped for at the time. Rather than begin analyzing what went wrong or anything along those lines, he just began work on the next film, knowing that one day the film would make back its money.

That mindset would not exist today.

If TPatF fails - they'll begin proclaiming things. 2D is dead (CGI only from now on), theatrical princess films are dead (DTV releases only from now on), etc. They wouldn't let it be and sort itself out.
This is what I hate about people who claim "What would Walt do?" Well, Walt Disney didn't live in 2009 and the business has changed, so nobody can know what Walt would have done. And you, Neal, earlier acted like this annoys you as well, but here you are basically saying "What would Walt do?"

You can't hold the moronic decisions of Tom Schumacher to the way the animation studio is run today under Lasseter's rule. Lasseter is the one who said that film's will be made in whatever medium the filmmakers deem most appropriate. I admit that I was outraged when the decision to go all CG was made, but thankfully Schumacher was moved away from animation so that they could create the art that you claim they aren't actually making today.

I think you need to take a few deep breaths and realize that whatever the final product is, it's going to be a much higher quality Pooh film than any of the spawns of Disney's original.
So, we don't need to be asking "What would Walt have done?" or saying "Only the 1977 film counts". I bet more kids today would recognize characters from the DTVs or "My Friends Tigger & Pooh" before they recognize anything from the original.
Yeah... That's why kids at the theme parks don't line up in droves for characters from the original classics... That's why there is a high demand for walkarounds of characters like Benjamin the manatee, the three princesses from Mulan 2, and the sea monster from Return to Neverland... :roll: Back up your outlandish claims with evidence.
And that's who this film will be marketed to - kids. What do you find in Disney Stores? Plushes, children's clothing, toys. The pins and collectibles are online because that's niche. So this film will do what it needs to do to sell those plushes, clothes, and toys. It won't worry so much about the hourglass, porcelain figure, or pin online.
Here you go again using the merchandise made as an indication that the film is only for kids. Yes, most adults don't go buying Winnie the Pooh merchandise, so why shouldn't the products you see be children's products? This has nothing to do with the film or its broad appeal. The newer Pooh films were dumbed down. The original is funny and charming for both kids and adults. That's what I want to see in the new Pooh film.
Perhaps, one day, I'll put more research into this than pure conjecture (for say, a thesis on the way out of my advertising program) - but I stick by what I said - Disney is more worried about the films advertising products than they used to be.
Yeah, perhaps you should do some more research and see that your opinion isn't the only opinion and you might just find that WDAS is still in the business of trying to make heartwarming classics that will touch audiences for years to come.
User avatar
Neal
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:40 am

Post by Neal »

I was referring to Pooh mainly when I said kids recognize the newer better. Tht was pretty clear from the sentence.

My parents run a campground, so I'm always surrounded by kids. Recently, I asked a group of six-year-olds what their favorite Pooh character was.

I got a bunch of Tiggers, a few piglets, several Lumpys.

Then I said "don't you guys like Gopher?" and the majority of the kids stared at me blankly until one boy said "you mean beaver?"

"No, Gopher."

The kids continued to stare at me blankly.

"He's not in the show, you have to mean beaver." the boy chimed.

Perhaps I'm dealing with a minority group of kids, but, my experience at the campground is kids know the new, not the old Pooh.
goofystitch
Collector's Edition
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2003 1:30 pm
Location: Walt Disney World

Post by goofystitch »

Are the kids preschoolers? If so, then of course their familiarity with Pooh is going to be My Friends Tigger and Pooh. If not, then perhaps Disney missed their mark when they released the Friendship Edition of The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh two years ago.

I am living in Orlando for the summer and Disney used to have a walkaround of Darby and her dog. They were commonly found in Pooh's Playful Spot in the Magic Kingdom. However, their presence didn't increase the length of the line to meet Pooh, Piglet, and Tigger. They also weren't added to the Pooh character meal at the Crystal Palace. They were recently pulled and the line to meet Pooh has remained the same length.

The point I am trying to make is that at the center of all Pooh franchises is Pooh, Piglet and Tigger. Then there are the key side characters, Eeyore, Rabbit, and Christopher Robin (I don't count the new series). And then there are the lesser side characters, which includes Kanga, Roo, Owl, Gopher, and Lumpy. Yes, Roo and Lumpy are appealing and easy to market and make merchandise out of, but until Lumpy existed, Roo served the purpose of somebody that could help move Tigger plots further.

I also want to add that I don't think anybody ever raised a fuss over Gopher because he wasn't around much. He poked his head out of his hole in the original film and a few funny jokes came out of it. "Don't feed the bear!" Lumpy, on the other hand, was the focal point of a whole feature and has subsequently been thrown into the franchise as if he was one of Christopher Robbin's toys, which he is not. At least I don't remember it being mentioned.

In a way, The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh is almost like the original Toy Story.
merlinjones
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1056
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:52 am

Post by merlinjones »

To get this "franchise" back on track, they need to go back to the charm and whimsy of Milne's original creation - as depicted in Walt's original featurettes - -and forget all the overstated modernized crappola that intervened with the creation of the TV animation division (personified by Lumpy).

And we need Christopher Robin back. Pooh is the story of Christopher's favorite stuffed bear and his adventures in CR's imagination, nothing more.
User avatar
Neal
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:40 am

Post by Neal »

I see the whole Pooh world as existing because of pantheistic solipsism. Essentially: because Christopher thinks it, it is real. And the whole power of pantheistic solipsism is multi-layered, because what Pooh and other characters think can also become real.

I believe the characters were all stuffed animals at one time, but thanks to Christopher playing make-believe with them, he actually made them real, gave them life. Not by the sense of the imaginary, I mean really-real.

And those characters he brought to life also have the ability to make things real.

I don't think Lumpy has to be introduced as one of his new stuffed animals; the simple fact that Lumpy is alive proves he was thanks to pantheistic solipsism.

I believe Darby is Christopher's younger sister. She got the 'main gang' as hand-me-downs and has added her own characters. Also, though, besides stuffed animals becoming real, there are also woodland creatures that become sentient.

In my grand view of this story: Christopher has a wood behind his house where his pantheistic solipsism brought the characters to life. Various extraneous characters throughout the series were woodland creatures. Say he spotted a gopher; he then pretends Gopher is a living breathing part of his imaginary-made-real world. Thanks to pantheistic solipsism, now there is a real, talking Gopher.

I don't see how Lumpy is any more cute or silly than the original Pooh or Tigger. They were both goofy with silly sayings and comments and misadventures. I don't see how Lumpy contradicts them.

But, enough of this. All in all, I'm sorry, everyone.

I suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. It causes me to need everything in my life to be on 'lists' and to be organized. I also need everything to be 'all-inclusive'.

View many of my old posts and you will find these tendencies.

I am a 'the more the merrier' type.

Essentially, I think every princess from every Disney media - TV show, the animated classics, the DTV - should all count, not just the select ones from the animated classics.

I don't mind "The Wild" being in the canon, because the more films the better, to me.

I made a list of every DVD re-release of every Disney animated classic.

I went through and wrote down every Disney short I have thanks to owning all the animated classics on DVD where a short is a bonus feature.

I tried to compile a list of every Disney character that could perform magic.

Most of my posts here are like that- trying to create these lists, trying to create order.

That’s why I made the ‘Disney Order’ website.
And my all-inclusiveness is essentially the idea everything from a continuity should be used in sequels. So like for this Pooh sequel, if I made it, I'd explain Darby to be Christopher's sister, and then how she had her stuffed animals and he has his, and then have every character from all 8 DTV sequels, 4 TV shows, and the made-for-TV films included as lead roles or cameos.

It's all a part of my OCD - the necessity for order, lists, and inclusiveness.

And yes, it makes me have a bit of a "there's no right or wrong, there's only my way" feeling.

Throughout my life that has worked for me because I live in a rural town. I was never bossy, but I was elected Prom King, Newspaper Editor, Yearbook Editor, Student Council President, and National Honor Society President - because my OCD causes me to make lists and be so meticulous that they saw it as organization and it helped me rise to the top.

In a town of less than 800 people and a graduating class of 33, I was a very big fish in a very small pond.

Now, on a forum like this, I am just another fish in a well-populated pond.

In my small town, my OCD made me look like a well-organized, put together person.

Here, my OCD tendencies are making me look like a whining, sniveling brat. I, therefore, am going to become a lurker and not a poster from this point forward. I don't mean to cause any of you trouble, but it is clear that I am annoying you. So rather than preserve my legacy as an outspoken jerk, I'll just let you know my OCD has made me be like this and have all my posts be about lists, and specifics, and characters - it's not productive and I apologize for causing you trouble. I take my leave now.
thesnakeguy
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:40 am

Post by thesnakeguy »

I vote against lumpy. Heffalump movie was fine, but the movie should be dictated by having a quality story not including this or that character. Lumpy's story has been told, time for a new story.
yukitora
Special Edition
Posts: 947
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 10:01 am
Location: at home apparently
Contact:

Post by yukitora »

I don't think you were talking to a minority group Neal. I grew up with the 90s disney channel winnie the pooh series, and I thought that it was the original. I didn't know there was a full length WDAS movie til last year (when I was 16). I also seem to be the only person who knows the existance of this film that I know of (other than the people I watch it with). These kids are probably doing the same with the new show. Why show them an old 70s films when you got something brand new? is probably the attitude going around.

I was really excited when I read that Christopher Robins was to eventually appear in the "MY FRIENDS TIGGER AND POOH" series. I think it said that his appearence was inevitable. I was thinking, what could the twist be? I'm sort of disappointed that will never materialise. So i'm quite ambilivant as to whether I'd like her in this upcoming film.

You know what would be awesome? Seeing the toys from another kid's point of view. Pooh could be all evil and sadistic antagonist. Tigger could be some magic-using hero and piglet could be his sex slave :wink: or something more kid-friendly (but kids do think like that sometimes)
User avatar
KubrickFan
Anniversary Edition
Posts: 1209
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:22 am

Post by KubrickFan »

I really think that Lumpy shouldn't be in it, if Lasseter wants to make Pooh more like the 1977 film. I really, really think it's a bad idea to put him (or her? I don't know, I have only seen the original film and the series) in a movie, just because the fans want it. Fans generally don't know what they want, and easily contradict each other. This topic is a very good example of that.
Image
User avatar
yakkofan725
Limited Issue
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:23 am

Post by yakkofan725 »

pap64 wrote:You do realize that Lumpy was created just so Disney could create more character based Winnie the Pooh merchandise, right?

In an article by Jim Hill it was revealed that Disney Consumer Products wanted to create a new Winnie the Pooh character that was cute and could push merchandise. So Lumpy was born. He has all of the qualifications of a highly merchandisable character, whether you believe it or not.

As for Disney "selling out"... You really should pay more attention to your Disney history.

Even since the days of God, erm I mean Walt Disney the studio has created merchandise based on its properties. When Mickey became really popular they made lots of toys and merchandise based on him. The money proved vital in the creation of new projects.

When Snow White was released dolls, toys and even records were released alongside the film.

Tinker Bell sold Peanut Butter. Alice sold Jell-O. Mickey sold EVERYTHING. The fab four also had their huge share of merchandise, including Happy Meal Toys, Burger King Toys, videogames and much, much more.

The sad reality is that ALL film studios make films for profit. Its what keeps the studios running, people working and, most importantly, creativity alive. Do they go overboard with the tie ins? Yes. Are some films made to keep a franchise alive? Yes. Do they make them any less good? Of course not.

Disney has not changed this. They created merchandise when Uncle Walt was head of the studio, they created merchandise when Michael Eisner was head of the studio and merchandise will still be made with Lasseter on board.

I'm sorry, Neal, but what I smell is the typical Disney fanboy angst simply because someone from Pixar had to come in and guide Disney into the future. Your arguments are weak.
To answer the BIG question, No! It should maintain the original shorts. That means No Lumpy, No Extra Gophers, And NO That's N - O, Darby!

2nd of all, They do go overboard, Today it's Bolt Dog Treats, Tomorrow, it's BOLT Mittens Hair Styling Play Set.

(That Play Set Should Never happen)
User avatar
pap64
Platinum Edition
Posts: 3535
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 12:57 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Post by pap64 »

I think the most overboard a company has ever gone with a franchise is Dreamworks with the Shrek merchandise. Really it was hard to turn around and NOT see anything Shrek related. Cereal, toys, merchandise, baby formula, waffles, pancake, syrup, underwear, shirts, car items, etc. etc. etc.

It made any effort by Disney look humble by comparison.
ImageImageImageImage

Image
User avatar
yakkofan725
Limited Issue
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 9:23 am

Post by yakkofan725 »

pap64 wrote:Shrek baby formula
That's...... just..... creepy
User avatar
disneyboy20022
Signature Collection
Posts: 6868
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:17 pm

Post by disneyboy20022 »

pap64 wrote:I think the most overboard a company has ever gone with a franchise is Dreamworks with the Shrek merchandise. Really it was hard to turn around and NOT see anything Shrek related. Cereal, toys, merchandise, baby formula, waffles, pancake, syrup, underwear, shirts, car items, etc. etc. etc.

It made any effort by Disney look humble by comparison.
Not to mention 2 more movies and a Spin-Off of Shrek..Puss In Boots: Ogre hunter..... :P

At least its good to know I am not the only one who thinks Shrek is becoming more marketable and commercialied than the Holiday known as Christmas....
Want to Hear How I met Roy E. Disney in 2003? Click the link Below

http://fromscreentotheme.com/ThursdayTr ... isney.aspx
Post Reply