Winnie the Pooh (2011)

[Goliath]

@ Disney Duster: those are all very good PR talking points which I'm sure the Disney Corporation will be more than happy to borrow from you (or maybe you've got them from an official Disney source and learned them by heart?). They're all very good in conveying the fact that 'Winnie the Pooh' was chosen because it's a sure and safe way to quickly cash in. No precious time and money spend on character development; no costly experimenting to find the right atmosphere or surroundings for the characters; no expensive famous celebrity voices: everything was already there! Almost no costs, no risks, and Disney is sure that the 'Pooh'-brand will bring in a huge amount of money. It doesn't have anything to do with any of the sentimental reasons you listed. That's just you covering up for a cheap-ass decision by the Disney execs.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I wouldn't disagree that money has probably played a part in the decision to make a new Pooh film but I also think the film was planned partly to keep the studio's best animators at Disney while the powers that be determined the future of 2D after Princess and the Frog. And to be honest from the trailer, I think the film looks very good, much better than I initially thought it would be. And after the massive amount of money spent on Tangled, I can't really blame Disney for making a relatively risk-free film that should earn them a fair amount at the box office.

[Disney Duster]

I think I finally understand that a lot of the things you say that sound rather, uh, not nice, are just you being flippantly funny. I almost laughed now. But I still disagree seriously, and so...

First of all I didn't get what I said from anything I read before, from Disney or otherwise. Next, you didn't answer my questions about thinking the Fab Five or Scrooge McDuck being in a Disney film would be just cashing in or any of the other negative things you feel about Pooh being in two films.

But moreso, what I wrote does not explain why Disney would choose this to be cheap and safe. You'd have to explain how my points specifically illustrated that. My points were that these characters are what Disney is about, that these characters were always intended to be in more than just one single thing, from the original creator and Walt, that there have been other sequels the studio has done, and that they are covering never before done stories and completing something.

But to address your new points, this is actually not very easy or safe for Disney. The first is that they have to recapture what the old film had. Not the direct-to-video ones. They have to capture what the original featurettes and film had. That's a huge task that actually has never been attempted so far by the theatrical division. Fantasia 2000 and The Rescuers Down Under were done differently from their originals, but this Winnie the Pooh film is trying to capture the original as much as it can, and that's hard. We have noted that what we have seen so far looks like it could have been animated back when the original was done. This could never have been done by the direct-to-video studios. It's not easy at all.

Next, what makes anyone think this film will be safely successful, if today's audiences, both adults and children, seem to prefer CGI, cynical pop culture fartfests, with jokes for adults that go over kid's heads, by other studios? There's even indications that Disney thinks this will bomb and doesn't have much faith in it.

But it's quintissentially Disney, and it's finishing what Walt started and wanted. It is completing the original book, which has not been completely covered, and thus leaves a story to be told in the Disney way.

I don't really see what your problem is when this was used as a 2D project that would be a good thing to do (in the sense that it's so Disney, and it's completing what Walt wanted, and it's just a good story to tell and generally good thing to do) until they thought of what future projects they should do. It's not like this is what all the future animated features will be like, it's not meant to be their most major major major release, but it is still big in that it's a return to doing what Disney is known for and what Disney is about, it is still big in being Disney continuing and completing it's legacy. It is big in Disney returning to itself, in both their renowned traditional animation and the kind of stories and characters they are about, all in high quality.

If you think once again it's Disney doing something that we're just falling for or whatever, well, all we can say is we are truly, genuinely happy and excited about this film. It feels kind of tremendous, this incredible recapturing of Disney magic and essence. So if you feel Disney is being too safe, I'm at least glad Disney is being Disney at all. They aren't going to do anymore theatrical Pooh films after this because the book will be covered and Pooh and Walt's vision will be completed. If you don't want to let them finish that vision, well, I don't think that's a very good or fair thing to think.

[DisneyAnimation88]

But moreso, what I wrote does not explain why Disney would choose this to be cheap and safe.

I can't speak for what Goliath meant, and I couldn't say if the film is cheap as I don't know what it's costing Disney, but, for me, I would agree it's a safe option. Everyone knows Winnie the Pooh, it's been one of Disney's most profitable and lucrative franchises for years so they don't have to spend a huge amount of marketing as everyone will recognise the characters and know what to expect. That being said, I would agree that it is good this isn't simply another direct-to-DVD feature. The calibre of animators working on the film suggests to me that perhaps it isn't simply viewed as a fast and cheap money-maker by Disney, but that they intend to make something that will match the quality of the original Pooh shorts from the 60's and 70's.

[SWillie!]

Nobody's trying to argue (well, except Duster) that this film is simply a way to make money. I'm fully well aware of that. But I don't see why just because it's meant for money, that means it can't be enjoyable at the same time. You seem to think that because Disney is making movie for money, that movie is automatically going to suck. As already mentioned, there's a lot of talent working on this film. So even though "The Walt Disney Company" doesn't care and just wants it's money... the artists and writers working on the film are, I'm sure, trying their best to make the most entertaining Pooh film they possibly can, even though it's "been done before."

[Elladorine]

I wouldn't disagree that money has probably played a part in the decision to make a new Pooh film but I also think the film was planned partly to keep the studio's best animators at Disney while the powers that be determined the future of 2D after Princess and the Frog. And to be honest from the trailer, I think the film looks very good, much better than I initially thought it would be. And after the massive amount of money spent on Tangled, I can't really blame Disney for making a relatively risk-free film that should earn them a fair amount at the box office.

^ This.

Disney has to continue to make money on animation in order to justify producing further animated films. Creating a film specifically to make money doesn't necessarily mean the film is going to be complete and utter crap. In a perfect world people would only make these films for the sake of pushing boundaries and being artistic but that's not quite how it works; animation is a business after all. Even Walt himself worked on certain projects just to keep the studio going.

[Goliath]

[...] But moreso, what I wrote does not explain why Disney would choose this to be cheap and safe. You'd have to explain how my points specifically illustrated that.

Your points didn't illustrate that. My argumentation runs contrary to your points. Was that not clear?

My points were that these characters are what Disney is about, that these characters were always intended to be in more than just one single thing, from the original creator and Walt, that there have been other sequels the studio has done, and that they are covering never before done stories and completing something.

Didn't I make it very clear that I think all your points are irrelevant? Because they sound like propaganda from the Disney Corporation? You know, PR to make them look good? I've already pointed that out. If the Disney Corporation had given one flying f--k about what Walt would have wanted, they wouldn't have made any of those low-quality, cringe-worthy, poorly animated, poorly written direct-to-dvd sequels. If only because Walt was very opposed to the idea of doing sequels! But *now* we're going to pretend that the Corporation is suddenly doing "what Walt would have wanted"? Just when they desperately need an explanation to defend yet *another* Pooh project?

Something smells fishy here...

But to address your new points, this is actually not very easy or safe for Disney. The first is that they have to recapture what the old film had. Not the direct-to-video ones. They have to capture what the original featurettes and film had. [...]

No, they don't, because that's not what the audience expects. Here on UD we are all animation fanatics and purists and *we* know the difference between the 'canon' (done by Disney Animation itself) and all the sequels (done by other studios/subsidiaries). But the general audience has no clue. They don't know about these distinctions. Hell, they don't even know Anastasia isn't a Disney film, go figure! To the audience, this is just another Pooh picture, nothing special or fancy about that. And the marketing of Pooh over the last decade and series like My friends Tigger and Pooh have effectively given the impression to the general public that Pooh is just a babysitter for the little ones. And the Corporation is counting on that.

Thus, to say this is not a safe project is laughable. (Sorry if that sounds mean, but that's what it is.)

Next, what makes anyone think this film will be safely successful, if today's audiences, both adults and children, seem to prefer CGI, cynical pop culture fartfests, with jokes for adults that go over kid's heads, by other studios?

Like I said: Pooh is considered a babysitter these days, and there are few demands on a babysitter film. If it;s enough to keep the little ones quiet for an hour, it's good enough. You've got to stop approaching this as an UD animation fan and start looking at it as the general viewer.

I left out the last part of your post because I was getting sick over the saccharine-sweet "Walt would have wanted this" and of course the infamous "Disney essence". After the last three films (this one included), I'm dying for an original and refreshing movie again, like Lilo & Stitch.

[LucilleBallFilms]

Song List (So Far):

"A Pooh Bear Takes Care of His Tummy"
Music and Lyrics by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez


"A Very Important Thing to Do"
Music and Lyrics by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez


"Everything is Honey"
Music and Lyrics by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez


"The Winner Song"
Music and Lyrics by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez


"Winnie the Pooh"
Written by Richard M. Sherman and Robert B. Sherman
Performed by Zooey Deschanel

[Disney Duster]

Goliath, wow, yea, it did kind of hurt that you just ignored everything, but those points still stand, so anyway...

I know the direct-to-video sequels were bad and not what Walt would have wanted at all, but that was their past. Now the company has a different head, and so does the animation department, and at least the one in the animation department either is or claims to care more about Walt, and since he would want us to believe him, this fits that at least. Lasster even said "This is the company that released Cinderella II" in a negative way, and said no more sequels (except Tinker Bell which are not really sequels but I don't like them either but he at least stopped all the others).

It does not matter what other people think. In fact, it really does help my point. If people think Pooh is just a babysitter, they already have tons of movies to sit their babies. Their babies will never get tired of those, the tons they already have. So they don't need this theatrical release and actually parents wouldn't want to pay the high prices and sit through a theatrical release when they have cheaper options in the longrun.

Next, because this may be seen as a babysitter, parents don't need to care about how faithful the film is to the previous ones or the original stories, or how good the art is. So the fact Disney is doing the rest of the original stories and in art and atmosphere that perfectly matches the original shows this isn't just to get their money.

In fact, the fact that this is being done by WDAS instead of the direct-to-video units already shows in and of itself that this is not just to make money, as the direct-to-videos were.

These clear facts simply show it's not only about money. It's just very clear.

[pick]

Brazilian Poster! (thanks to Planeta Disney)

http://www.planetadisney.com.br/wp-cont ... Poster.jpg

[Goliath]

It does not matter what other people think. In fact, it really does help my point. [...] These clear facts simply show it's not only about money. It's just very clear.

But... but... those points make no sense at all. It's a good thing people view Pooh as a babysitter? Because this film will attract people who don't see it as a babysitter? Erm... that's a very weird way of thinking. It's turning everything upside-down.

[ajmrowland]

I wouldn't disagree that money has probably played a part in the decision to make a new Pooh film but I also think the film was planned partly to keep the studio's best animators at Disney while the powers that be determined the future of 2D after Princess and the Frog. And to be honest from the trailer, I think the film looks very good, much better than I initially thought it would be. And after the massive amount of money spent on Tangled, I can't really blame Disney for making a relatively risk-free film that should earn them a fair amount at the box office.

^ This.

Disney has to continue to make money on animation in order to justify producing further animated films. Creating a film specifically to make money doesn't necessarily mean the film is going to be complete and utter crap. In a perfect world people would only make these films for the sake of pushing boundaries and being artistic but that's not quite how it works; animation is a business after all. Even Walt himself worked on certain projects just to keep the studio going.

totally

And you should really put milkbuds in that poster

This movie's shaping up to be pretty good, and I'm not a major Pooh fan either.

[Old Fish Tale]

New photos! Click here!

[Sotiris]

New photos! Click here!

Wow, thanks! That's a lot of artwork.

[pettla77]

New photos! Click here!

Thanks for the link!

[Sotiris]

Work progresses on a 3-D version of The Lion King and there's shorts in work, features in story development, (Winnie the Pooh, I'm told, is "in the can") and supervising animators are engaged with various smaller projects.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/diz.html

[DisneyJedi]

The Diz
http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/diz.html

Work progresses on a 3-D version of The Lion King and there's shorts in work, features in story development, (Winnie the Pooh, I'm told, is "in the can") and supervising animators are engaged with various smaller projects.

In the can....

Is that considered a good or bad thing?

[Elladorine]

In the can....

Is that considered a good or bad thing?

That means it's finished.

[Super Aurora]

New photos! Click here!

Christopher Robin look so different from usual look. especially the eyes.

He also look very shota which no doubt will have Japan generate assload of kinky fanarts of him.

[Semaj]

Christopher Robin's design is somewhat surprising, since Glen Keane is supposed to be his directing animator.

The background art is much more picturesque than what was seen in past Pooh projects. But I'm still left wondering why they're doing a Pooh reprise when we've already had two TV shows, multiple holiday specials, and a barrage of DTV follow-ups.