The Disney Essence Debate

[Christopher_TCUIH]

@Disney Duster: Hey, I didn't mean to make you feel lousy. For what it's worth I actually went back and read about 95% of what you wrote over the 9 pages

I understand where you're coming from. It would be like if The Little Mermaid was changed to "The Little 2-Dollar Whore" where it's a rom-com about a prostitute falling in love with a taxidermist.

One thing I have trouble with is your knowledge on what exactly Walt wants. Even if you knew him personally, you can't possibly know <i>exactly</i> what he wants. We can assume by following patterns 'n such but we simpy <b>aren't</b> him.

You should try to work for Disney. It's never too late unless you're 96 or something. You seem to have the passion to get the "essence" back on track

[Lazario]

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYLahAgC.html" width="480" height="300" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#AYLahAgC"></embed>

The Nostalgia Chick is by far and away my favorite video producer at Thatguywiththeglasses.com. But I hated this video. This is the first and perhaps only positive Disney video she's ever made and she loses all credibility, after bashing the hell out of The Little Mermaid and Pocahontas, when she makes claims like Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King were great. She even... takes an attitude in the video against people who think Lion King was a rip-off. Does she have a clue how much viewers who KNOW her have to stretch their suspension of disbelief to accept her general conclusion on this movie after all the shit she slang in previous videos?

Phelous rules, though. Glad to see he was featured here. (That said... MORE Oancitizen + Lupa crossovers please!)

[Super Aurora]

The chick use to be alright. Now she went down hill and so I hardly bother watching her stuff. I only watch Doug's and Snob's stuff.

[estefan]

The chick use to be alright. Now she went down hill and so I hardly bother watching her stuff. I only watch Doug's and Snob's stuff.

Wow, I'm 100% the same way. Used to watch Linkara and Chick, but I got rather tired of them after a while.

[Lazario]

I stopped watching Doug for the longest time but he's making a major comeback with me thanks to his crossover with Lupa, Simon Sez. Oh, and Nostalgiaween was especially good this year.

I mostly just watch Phelous, Lupa, Oancitizen, PushingUpRoses, Welshy when he's not doing TV, and Chick. Though I agree, her last 2 videos were just insulting and boring. It's sad, though, because she'd also been on a comeback streak since She's All That.

I like Brad's videos as himself and I think I like his 80's Dan persona. But, except for his videos on Too Smart for Strangers and that Ted Dansen + Jason / Justine Bateman Dating Tutorial, I can't stand The Cinema Snob. I've tried and he just does nothing for me.

[Goliath]

Walt stuck closer to the source material than Tangled did now.

LIE.

AND YOU KNOW IT.

[5star]

But you didn't read my more Walt Disnyey-like version of the story where it is about the same entertainment and "meaning" of the movie you like, just with the beginning and ending fixed to be more like how Walt would have made them.

What did you find so wrong with the beginning?

Walt is not alive now, but he made his movies a way that is know as what a Disney movie is, so to continue making movies in his name but make them far away from the kind of movies he made is very wrong, you see. All you have to do is watch Walt's movies to know how to make a Disney movie, so they can do it.

Well, this movie made a shit load of money, and got a lot of fame and hype with the majority labeling it as disney getting back on their feet; A lot of people are praising the movie,and it seems to have gotten some interested in disney; it helped raised the disney name, so Walt would most likely be very contented..I don't know which business man wouldn't

[Lazario]

Walt stuck closer to the source material than Tangled did now.

Does that really matter?

[Disney Duster]

Thanks Christopher_TCUIH, I didn't really need you to read all I wrote, I was just saying that you said something which, if only you had read what I said before, it should have explained it...

I don't think we can know all the time exactly what Walt wants, but we can see the pattern of what kind of things he kept in his movies, and to follow those patterns is to make his kinds of movies, in other words, to make Disney movies, because you must see previous Disney movies to know how to make them. And this pattern that was followed for so long was broken.

Walt stuck closer to the source material than Tangled did now.

LIE.

AND YOU KNOW IT.

Wrong. You must explain yourself and back this up, like I have over and over, for me to believe you.

What did you find so wrong with the beginning?

The fact that so much of it sounds so far from the actual story of Rapunzel. The original story wasn't an ordinary woman, with a magic golden sun drop flower, or a random forest where the flower just appears in, or king and queen searching everywhere for a magical cure. I changed it to Mother Gothel being the original story's witch with, or the woman taking their baby just out of selfish desire. So I changed the beginning to a witch with a garden who casts a spell to make the golden sun drop fall on her Rapunzel flowers which get stolen by a peasant to feed his pregnant wife who needs them and the witch takes their daughter Rapunzel away. Then the Prince of the palace leaves (sorta like Jasmine) to become a thief, but Rapunzel makes him take her to his palace lights because she's never been out before and the lights are so amazing, she thinks he abandons her just like in the movie, the ending is about the same except then Rapunzel finds her peasnat parents before moving into Prince Flynn's castle.

Well, this movie made a shit load of money, and got a lot of fame and hype with the majority labeling it as disney getting back on their feet; A lot of people are praising the movie,and it seems to have gotten some interested in disney; it helped raised the disney name, so Walt would most likely be very contented..I don't know which business man wouldn't

But Walt never wanted making money or hype being all his films were about!!! Didn't you know that?

[Super Aurora]

LIE.

AND YOU KNOW IT.

Wrong. You must explain yourself and back this up, like I have over and over, for me to believe you.

...........
no offense but you are one of the last person who should be lecturing someone that. Especially someone like Goliath of all people.

But Walt never wanted making money or hype being all his films were about!!! Didn't you know that?

Now that is completely false and you know it. Walt was a business man. He wanted make money. He expressed numerous disappointment when his classic films he made didn't do well in BO. Alice in Wonderland and yes-Sleeping Beauty comes to mind.

[DisneyAnimation88]

And this pattern that was followed for so long was broken.

Have you not see The Black Cauldron? Or does that have the "essence"?

The fact that so much of it sounds so far from the actual story of Rapunzel.

You mean like Disney adaptation of The Little Mermaid?

But Walt never wanted making money or hype being all his films were about!!! Didn't you know that?

I'm not going to get into the "Walt didn't care about money..." debate because you saying that is just ridiculous as Super Aurora explained. But I think you're wrong about hype as well; Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty were both films that were hyped up by the studio, perhaps one of the reasons Walt was so disappointed when they didn't do well when they were released.

[Goliath]

LIE.

AND YOU KNOW IT.

Wrong. You must explain yourself and back this up, like I have over and over, for me to believe you.

I, and countless of other members, have done so, on more occasions than I care to remember. And you know it. Junglebook, 101 Dalmatians, Sleeping Beauty, they have all been discussed. You just CHOOSE to ignore them. That makes your posts disingeneous at best (purposfully lying at worst).

[Disney Duster]

The Black Cauldron, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians, and Sleeping Beauty all kept their original titles and character backgrounds. There, I explained and backed up my points and won over your rebuttles.

But Walt never wanted making money or hype being all his films were about!!! Didn't you know that?

Now that is completely false and you know it. Walt was a business man. He wanted make money. He expressed numerous disappointment when his classic films he made didn't do well in BO. Alice in Wonderland and yes-Sleeping Beauty comes to mind.

But Walt never wanted making money or hype being all his films were about!!! Didn't you know that?

[Super Aurora]

The Black Cauldron, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians, and Sleeping Beauty all kept their original titles and character backgrounds. There, I explained and backed up my points and won over your rebuttals.

No you haven't. And there is numerous background changes in such as TBC or TJB as we have pointed out millions times that you chooses to ignore or try to find half assed loop way around it in order for you not to look like a fool(even though it's doing the exact opposite)

Neither is Rapunzel is all about money if that's what you are implying. Bottom line is that Walt was a business man and making the money is part of the deal.

Just being innovated doesn't mean you don't care or focus about the money you make.

Take Apple for example. They are huge innovated company new and creative ideas that help improve or shape the world around. But that doesn't mean that's all they are doing this for. They're also doing this for money as well.

Disney is basically same way.

The Black Cauldron, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians, and Sleeping Beauty all kept their original titles and character backgrounds. There, I explained and backed up my points and won over your rebuttals.

No you haven't. And there is numerous background changes in such as TBC or TJB as we have pointed out millions times that you chooses to ignore or try to find half assed loop way around it in order for you not to look like a fool(even though it's doing the exact opposite)

[DisneyAnimation88]

The Black Cauldron, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians, and Sleeping Beauty all kept their original titles and character backgrounds. There, I explained and backed up my points and won over your rebuttles.

No you really haven't and you never have, otherwise several people wouldn't still be disagreeing with you after all these months. What I meant by mentioning The Black Cauldron was that you said Tangled broke a long pattern in Disney films and I think if any film actually did that it was TBC.

[Dream Huntress]

The Black Cauldron, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians, and Sleeping Beauty all kept their original titles and character backgrounds. There, I explained and backed up my points and won over your rebuttles.

I'm failing to see the issue here, you're against them for not exactly following the Rapunzel tale, but you're okay with them not following exactly the stories of those movies? Because you do know those are not the same as the stories they're adapted from right? Because if you're okay with those making major changes, but you're not okay with Tangled or PATF, just because you don't personally like those movies, then that's kinda hypocritical.

But Walt never wanted making money or hype being all his films were about!!! Didn't you know that?

You're right, that's why he didn't agreed to greenlight Dumbo, because it was a smaller scale movie, short, and done cheaply, which they needed to do after their previous films bombed. Oh wait, he did.

[Goliath]

The Black Cauldron, The Little Mermaid, The Jungle Book, 101 Dalmatians, and Sleeping Beauty all kept their original titles and character backgrounds. There, I explained and backed up my points and won over your rebuttles.

No, you didn't and no, they didn't. They did not in 101 Dalmatians and they did not in Jungle Book; Sleeping Beauty was cut short and The Little Mermaid's ending was totally changed.

(singing) And you knooooooooow iiiiiiiiiit!

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2wuPssClKs )

[Disney Duster]

No you really haven't and you never have, otherwise several people wouldn't still be disagreeing with you after all these months.

On the contrary, you have and other have not understood what I was talking about or gotten me wrong before. The most recent examples being that you missed how I said Flynn would be a prince who becomes the same thief you know in my version of the story, and Dream Huntress getting me wrong that I was saying the versions of the story I mentioned all have something Tangled and TPAF don't, not that I just don't like them.

To all: First, the money thing. Yes Walt paid attention to money. However, those were not only about money, and they weren't even only about emotion or heart either. His stories also kept a certain amount/kind of class, sophistication, and faithfulness to their sources, and this is what Tangled lacks (mainly the faithfulness). I was just saying just because Tangled made money proves nothing good more than they have money.

The next thing, here we go:

Let us look at some big things all Walt Disney films have in common: the characters keep whether they are of noble birth or not. They keep their supernaturality if they have it. The titles stay almost exactly the same as the originals. And no matter how the original story's ending went, it ends happily.

These four things stay the same for all of the movies you say did not have them, except for Tangled, which only kept one, and kind of half of another one (Mother Gothel is not supernatural, she just uses a supernatural object that anyone else can use the same as her).

[Christopher_TCUIH]

The Disney essence is SA's.. love for Aurora

<img src="http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc4 ... 8eb751.jpg" border="0" alt=""> <img src="http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc4 ... e1e9f8.jpg" border="0" alt="">

[DisneyAnimation88]

On the contrary, you have and other have not understood what I was talking about or gotten me wrong before.

Actually I think we have understood you, we just don't agree with you. Whenever someone disagrees with you, you can't keep saying "you don't understand what I'm saying".

The most recent examples being that you missed how I said Flynn would be a prince who becomes the same thief you know in my version of the story

You're incorrect, I did know what you meant. But, like I said in that thread, I personally don't see what that particular change would add to the film and thought your versio lacked and detracted from the emotional depth of Tangled. Again, I disagree and you say I don't understand when I do.

I get you don't like Tangled or whatever but I don't see why you have to continue this agenda and keep trying to convince the rest of us that we're wrong for liking the film. For me Tangled is a great Disney film, not the best, but it's unmistakeably Disney. Having read The Jungle Book and The Little Mermaid, nothing you can say is going to convince me that they were not significantly altered in their Disney adaptations. Apply all the technicalities you want and keep saying "none of them were changed as much as Tangled", at the end of the day it doesn't alter the fact that there are several other Disney films that underwent significant changes.