Disney Animation looks back at the first 50! :D

[Goliath]

[...] I mean people still talk about and love, and appriciate and watch "Lilo and Stitch" which doesn't have the "classic" Disney plot points,

Yes, it does.

This Winnie the Pooh film is not cheap and lazy! This is the first time Walt Disney Feature Animation is making a Pooh film, isn't it? This is what they really wanted to make.

This is not "what they really wanted to make". It's a safe move for Disney. They *know* that everything 'Pooh' sells, and sells well. They need a finanical succes, so they have chosen for something that has already proven itself. Plus, it is cost-effective. They didn't have to spend years developing characters and personalities; they didn't have to cast the right voices; they didn't have to do all sorts of style development. All that was already there! Just a new story will do. That's lazy.

What would you do if they did more movies of Black Cauldron books? Or what about when Mort is done, what if they made more movies from more Discworld books? Would you think those sequels were cheap and lazy?

Yes, I would. Though not *as* lazy as Pooh, because Pooh already had 5 sequels and two tv shows.

Here's the thing: the post-Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh- unless I'm mistaken- didn't follow any of the original AA Milne stories. So this new Pooh movie will be that; based on the actual Pooh stories.

That's besides the point. Audiences couldn't care less about that. Disney knows Pooh is a sure thing, and that's why they picked it. I can't believe people are getting excited about the millionth Pooh production. I thought people expected fresh, new, original stories from Disney for their 'Classics' line. It's also counter-productive for Disney: they release a statement that they won't be making any princess movies anytime soon, in an attempt to diversify and reach a broader audience --while at the same time, they go for something old and familiar, that has a "been there, done that"-feel to it.

Except that film didn't cover all of the stories from the original books, just half of them. The new film covers the other half, so it's not repetition; it's completion.

Then Disney also has to release a new Pinocchio-film, as it covered only a fraction of the original Collodi stories; a new Junglebook, since that one didn't cover *any* of the original stories; a new Sleeping Beauty, since Perrault's version went on after Aurora woke up; a new... well, you get the point. Completition can't be an argument or criteria. Disney has never been about completeness. That argument is now used by Disney to mask their laziness.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I agree with all those who say Disney chose a new Pooh film because it was something of a "safe" choice. My thinking was Disney got all of their best animators back for Princess and the Frog which was make-or-break for animation. So this Pooh film was a way of keeping them all together until Lasseter and co decided whether 2D animation at the studio had a future and what the next big 2D film would be. Maybe I'm wrong but that was my theory anyway.

[milojthatch]

I agree with all those who say Disney chose a new Pooh film because it was something of a "safe" choice. My thinking was Disney got all of their best animators back for Princess and the Frog which was make-or-break for animation. So this Pooh film was a way of keeping them all together until Lasseter and co decided whether 2D animation at the studio had a future and what the next big 2D film would be. Maybe I'm wrong but that was my theory anyway.

That is a very possible theory I think. For all of Lassiter's talk of 2D coming back, I think Disney as a company still questions it and they want to see a return on it ASAP. I for one hope Pooh does well.

[Disney Duster]

Pinocchio felt completed because it had the ending of the book, that character's journey was complete. Sleeping Beauty also partly was taken from the Grimm's version (thorns, kiss, Briar Rose name) and that ended with the princess waking up, her story was complete.

Also, there have been Pooh sequels, but not in Disney Feature Animation. You didn't object to Fantasia 2000, and Walt wanted to make a true Winnie the Pooh animated feature which the original featurettes weren't exactly a true animated feature, so this is also doing what Walt wanted.

But the main point is: We do not know for sure why they chose this film, so you can't say why they did since so many people think that's not why that did it.

It seems to me they chose to do it t show a return to form, to do characters they loved and that are so loved in all of Disney, and to do the characters justice with a true feature and completion.

[jpanimation]

Basically the same comparison that Kelvin posted, albeit a little more precise, but wow. Give me that Blu-Ray now.

[Goliath]

Basically the same comparison that Kelvin posted, albeit a little more precise, but wow. Give me that Blu-Ray now.

You sure? You know people will be complaining that the colors on the picture below is much too bright and doesn't look theatrical at all. (In fact, I tend to say that as well.)

Pinocchio felt completed because it had the ending of the book, that character's journey was complete. Sleeping Beauty also partly was taken from the Grimm's version (thorns, kiss, Briar Rose name) and that ended with the princess waking up, her story was complete.

There you go AGAIN, making all kinds of ADDITIONAL 'arguments' after the 'completition'-argument was already debunked. It doesn't matter how something "felt". Walt Disney's Pinocchio and Sleeping Beauty (let alone Jungle Book) did NOT (I repeat: not) encompass EVERYTHING from the original sources. I didn't say that's a bad thing. Quite the opposite: it's a good thing, because it makes for better films. So it's not a criticism of Walt Disney. So you don't have to go insane again and 'defend' poor Walt.

I was simply pointing out a FACT, that debunks the 'completition'-argument that was used to justify the new Pooh film.

You didn't object to Fantasia 2000,

That comparison is invalid. Fantasia 2000 was all new (except the Mickey repetition). The original Fantasia didn't have 5 sequels and 2 tv shows following it.

and Walt wanted to make a true Winnie the Pooh animated feature which the original featurettes weren't exactly a true animated feature, so this is also doing what Walt wanted.

I won't go into any "What would Walt have done" discussion with you again, since we all know you have appointed yourself as the one and only spokesman for Walt. So arguing with you on that is pointless. Besides, Walt is dead now for over 40 years and we don't know what he would do if he were alive today. Walt often changed his minds about projects. Regardless, the point "What would Walt have wanted" is irrelevant now.

But the main point is: We do not know for sure why they chose this film, so you can't say why they did since so many people think that's not why that did it.

Uhm... yes, I can say that. Why... I believe that's what I just did in the post you replied to!

It seems to me they chose to do it t show a return to form, to do characters they loved and that are so loved in all of Disney, and to do the characters justice with a true feature and completion.

You are free to be that naieve in order to worship a multibillion dollar corporation, but I won't be...

[Super Aurora]

I really have no opinion of this new pooh movie except the fact that Christopher robin look like a lawyer is best thing ever.

I think Disney need go radical like make a movie about....

boobs
and how important boobs are to us.


or a movie about tacos.






......oh wait we had that already.

[Disney Duster]

Goliath, no, you didn't debunk it and you can say what you want but you could very well be wrong. You still haven't truly discovered why they made this, and many, many of us think they didn't make it for the reasons you said. The people working on the film will probably agree with us to. You can think what you want, but it's many against that this time.

There's different ways of the word "complete". After all, wouldn't the true complete to be to do every single detail of a book? None of the Disney films have done that. Yet, me and others have already thought of a "complete" that Pooh very much could be.

And Fantasia 2000 does count. It's still a sequel, with the original's name in it. And it didn't have lots of sequels, or shows, but it had those features that became shorts. It is still valid. It's still a sequel.

As for what Walt would have done, you can say whatever you want, but we still know Walt wanted to do a complete Winnie the Pooh feature film, because he said he did. And you can't argue against that fact.

[rj.disney]

Basically the same comparison that Kelvin posted, albeit a little more precise, but wow. Give me that Blu-Ray now.

Now THAT is gorgeous! I really hope that we get this and Hunchback in the near future.

okay, back to regular programming..

[Sky Syndrome]

My, how did they find Pegasus under all that dirt? He's blinding me!

The video was cool. I agree some movies should have had their moments chosen with more care.

[tlc38tlc38]

or a movie about tacos.

TACOS!! I LOVE ME SOME TACOS!

[skyler888]

[...] I mean people still talk about and love, and appriciate and watch "Lilo and Stitch" which doesn't have the "classic" Disney plot points,

Yes, it does.

lol sorry i guess i should have said, "cliche" disney plot points, the ones people expect or perhaps what some people would call "the disney essence"

[milojthatch]

This whole post has become very comical. Some of what I've read, well...wow. I think that sums it up.

But, there have been some thoughts and things pointed out that have been interesting. I would be interested if the next 50 animated films are made faster then the first 50.

But to the point that there are in fact 50 DAC, look, I understand not everyone wants to accept that fact. I guess their is some kind of mentality that only the ones they like should count, or something. Come on, with 50 films, you are going to have some hits and misses, no one is that good, even Pixar. Before they get to that many, they will start making some that are not that good. Some would even argue that they already have. But like them or hate them, each one of these 50 films is a DAC.

I've heard some argue it seems most against "Dinosaur." Despite the fact that it is number 39 on that list and that the studio that makes these films has said that it is in fact on this list, it seems that it is not good enough for some.

Is it because the characters were CGI? Then I guess we can't count "Chicken Little," "Meet the Robinsons," "Blot," or "Tangled." I admit I'm not the biggest fan that CG films are now part of the DAC, but they are, oh well, get over it.

Is it because they shot the background in real locations and blended live action backgrounds to animated characters? Gee, I guess we not can't count either of the "Fantasia" films or the package films, since all of them had live action elements in them.

Was it becuase Disney's The Secret Lab made the film? Ok, first off, Dream Quest had basically gotten to the point were they only made CG effects for Disney. Second off, Disney fully integrated them as an off shoot of their Burbank location at the time this film was made. How much more a part of the animation studio can you get? My understanding is that originally, THEY were meant to be the CG side of Disney Animation. They, some could argue, were more part of the Disney Animation department then the Paris or Florida units were, yet films made at those places, or worked on there, are part of the DAC.

When they shut The Secret Lab down, they fully integrated whatever was left into the Animation department. Technically, they were part of the animation department. And I know, I know, that a number of people want to count other films like "A Goofy Movie" as part of the DAC, but it never will be.

Fact is, especially with the special Disney Animation Studio's 50th film logo, Disney has more then ever just branded what is and isn't one of their DAC. I really don't see how this debate is still going on. Disney ended it, move on and talk about what's next. Frankly, that is far more interesting. I Think this horse has been beaten enough.

[BK]

This whole post has become very comical. Some of what I've read, well...wow. I think that sums it up.

But, there have been some thoughts and things pointed out that have been interesting. I would be interested if the next 50 animated films are made faster then the first 50.

But to the point that there are in fact 50 DAC, look, I understand not everyone wants to accept that fact. I guess their is some kind of mentality that only the ones they like should count, or something. Come on, with 50 films, you are going to have some hits and misses, no one is that good, even Pixar. Before they get to that many, they will start making some that are not that good. Some would even argue that they already have. But like them or hate them, each one of these 50 films is a DAC.

I've heard some argue it seems most against "Dinosaur." Despite the fact that it is number 39 on that list and that the studio that makes these films has said that it is in fact on this list, it seems that it is not good enough for some.

Is it because the characters were CGI? Then I guess we can't count "Chicken Little," "Meet the Robinsons," "Blot," or "Tangled." I admit I'm not the biggest fan that CG films are now part of the DAC, but they are, oh well, get over it.

Is it because they shot the background in real locations and blended live action backgrounds to animated characters? Gee, I guess we not can't count either of the "Fantasia" films or the package films, since all of them had live action elements in them.

Was it becuase Disney's The Secret Lab made the film? Ok, first off, Dream Quest had basically gotten to the point were they only made CG effects for Disney. Second off, Disney fully integrated them as an off shoot of their Burbank location at the time this film was made. How much more a part of the animation studio can you get? My understanding is that originally, THEY were meant to be the CG side of Disney Animation. They, some could argue, were more part of the Disney Animation department then the Paris or Florida units were, yet films made at those places, or worked on there, are part of the DAC.

When they shut The Secret Lab down, they fully integrated whatever was left into the Animation department. Technically, they were part of the animation department. And I know, I know, that a number of people want to count other films like "A Goofy Movie" as part of the DAC, but it never will be.

Fact is, especially with the special Disney Animation Studio's 50th film logo, Disney has more then ever just branded what is and isn't one of their DAC. I really don't see how this debate is still going on. Disney ended it, move on and talk about what's next. Frankly, that is far more interesting. I Think this horse has been beaten enough.

+ infinity

[The_Iceflash]

As far as Lilo and Stitch is concerned, while I really really enjoy it, I think it's a little too pop-culture-ly with the Elvis music and all. That and Stitch does remind me a bit of a Saturday morning cartoon-like character. Certainly the film wasn't but some of the characters particularly the aliens had that kind of feel to them IMO.

[Duckburger]

I think that's a moot point. 99% of all kids under 12 -their main target demographic- are most likely completely unaware of who Elvis is (unless their parents were fans). If you ask me, the reason pop culture references are added to films is to make them more accessible to audiences, which Elvis does not do to the audience Disney was looking for. If it were songs from some pop singer the companies wanted to push at that moment, then it'd be different. Like Justin Bieber or Hannah Montana songs, something like that. But Elvis already has infinite shelf-life, so it will never really feel dated, if you ask me.

I thought it was a nice touch to the overall picture, but different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[The_Iceflash]

I think that's a moot point. 99% of all kids under 12 -their main target demographic- are most likely completely unaware of who Elvis is (unless their parents were fans). If you ask me, the reason pop culture references are added to films is to make them more accessible to audiences, which Elvis does not do to the audience Disney was looking for. If it were songs from some pop singer the companies wanted to push at that moment, then it'd be different. Like Justin Bieber or Hannah Montana songs, something like that. But Elvis already has infinite shelf-life, so it will never really feel dated, if you ask me.

I thought it was a nice touch to the overall picture, but different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I think putting in already released popular music recordings into a Disney film did that. Correct me if I'm wrong but I can't really think of a previously time that Disney did that.

The film seemed to me like it was trying too hard to be hip and cool. That's what it felt like to me.

[DisneyJedi]

In a way, Lilo & Stitch is how I came to appreciate Elvis's music.

[Elladorine]

I'm not sure how choosing the music of someone that had already been dead for 25 years could be considered hip and cool. Now had they picked popular music from Avril Lavign, Pink, or dare I say it, Mandy Moore . . .

[Disney's Divinity]

I'm not sure how choosing the music of someone that had already been dead for 25 years could be considered hip and cool. Now had they picked popular music from Avril Lavign, Pink, or dare I say it, Mandy Moore . . .

Has Mandy Moore ever had a hit song? I mean, besides "Cry" from A Walk to Remember.

Avril Lavigne's another blast from the past. Her popularity kind of burnt out 5 years ago or so.