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?
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