Big Hero 6

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:09 am

DisneyDude2010 wrote:Back to Big Hero 6. So will Silver Samurai be replaced?

From what I've read, I think he has to be because he's a part of the X-Men universe and the films rights to those characters are held by 20th Century Fox.

Super Aurora · Post by **Super Aurora** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:10 am

DisneyDude2010 wrote: Back to Big Hero 6. So will Silver Samurai be replaced?

Depends if the rights agreement include the characters animated or not.

I pretty sure when they say Fox has movie rights to X-men and the characters associated to it, they mean only in Live Action terms.

Avaitor · Post by **Avaitor** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:16 am

Like I mentioned before, Silver Samurai is going to be in the next Wolverine movie, so yes, they're going to have ot replace him.

Mooky · Post by **Mooky** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:22 am

Sotiris wrote:Apparently, they don't mind licensing their characters. Just now, they gave the theatrical rights of "The Human Fly" to an independent studio. Personally, I don't think they should keep doing that. Even with less known or obscure characters.

It's actually not a recent development; supposedly the rights to this character haven't been at Marvel's for years. I seriously doubt they'd be inclined to start licensing their characters again (even those that are virtually unknown) after all they went through in the process of forming their own studio as a direct result of seeing their other properties prosper financially and/or fail creatively at Fox/Sony/Universal/LionsGate/New Line Cinema.

Sotiris wrote:It won't because the Marvel Cinematic Universe applies only to the live-action films produced by Marvel Studios.

Ah, but then I ask 'why not'?

When MCU first started out, they had plans of branching out to TV. TV show called "AKA Jessica Jones" was in serious development with full intention of it being incorporated in the MCU, but it failed to be picked up a couple of months ago. "Hulk" series was also (and may still be) in development. Also, new "Avengers" animated series (the one that will replace "Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes") is rumored to be set in the same universe – Marvel's writer Jeph Loebe even went so far as to say:

...which will be a brand new and really extraordinary looking animated series dealing with the Avengers in that same world.

So there's really nothing stopping them from expanding to animation – unless it all comes down to the well-known "animation is for kids"-bias.

Super Aurora wrote:I recall when they first announced Disney buying Marvel, they reassured to Marvel fans that Disney would not meddle into Marvel's field and let Marvel handle their own characters and how they are presented.

The movie in someway seems to negate that promise.

Hello, we are Disney and Pixar, kings of broken promises and masters of deception, we're out of touch with reality and we like to change our minds A LOT.

"People accuse us of planting sexual subliminal and racist messages in our movies. So, instead if disputing, explaining or addressing them in any way, we will remove every instance of questionable content in its entirety. It totally won't look like we’re covering something up."

"Disney's Platinum collection consists of our 10 bestselling films on home video. Sorry, we meant to say 14. Yes, 14 is a special number."

"Aladdin's DVD sales underperformed so we have removed it from the Diamond Edition line. No, wait, it's welcome back Aladdin, bye-bye Pongo."

"Following Home on the Range we are completely stopping the production of hand-drawn films. JK, here's Princess and the Frog for you."

"Our plan is to make hand-drawn films on a two-year basis. Kidding again, after Winnie the Pooh you get nothing."

"After the release of Tangled, we don't plan on producing any more films based on fairytales. Oh, wait, Tangled was a success? Look what we brought back from "development hell": Frozen, Maleficent, and Oz!"

"Here at Pixar we believe story is everything and we'll make sequels only if the story is good. Btw, have you seen our newest Cars 2 clip?"

"Overload of low quality direct-to-video sequels, change in marketing focus, and neglecting artistic, historical and social significance of our studio/products in favour of financial factors have tarnished our reputation to the point of them hurting box-office results of our feature films, and public perception of us as a company has shifted from being seen as a leader in quality family entertainment, to pandering to tweens, toddlers and little girls only. It is clear to everyone that these sequels should never be publicly available (or at least not without serious limitations) or produced again, and that constant dumbing down of our products in order to pursue short-term results has to be stopped. But hey, here's our special limited "Buy 2, get 1 free" offer: Buy Cinderella II and Cinderella III special deluxe editions and you'll get a free copy of Cinderella, which includes a sneak peek at our newest, 7th addition to the Tinker Bell series, Tinker Bell and the Magical Secret Mystery movie, and an entire episode of Sofia the First! Also included in the deal is Cinderella’s tiara for that special princess inside of you."

So I'm not at all surprised at this whole Marvel thing.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:You're not being paranoid at all, all of your points are reasonable and I think we all share your concerns to some extent.

Thanks, it's reassuring to know I'm not the only one feeling this way.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:The way I look at it is, as I've said before, is that if the character is obscure enough then it can be made to fit into the Disney canon. When rumours of this film first began I immediately thought of an Iron Man or Hulk or Thor film under the WDAS banner and the thought really did make me angry. But over time, I've kind of come to the conclusion that (sorry for repeating myself) if a Marvel property is obscure enough that it can be made to fit within the WDAS canon then I would be willing to give it a chance.

Neal wrote:What the eff is the difference between adapting a novel (which Walt did multiple times) or adapting a comic book? Both already have a developed universe, characters, themes... the only difference is the literary medium.

... there is no difference.

Neal, you're totally right, on a basic level, this really isn't all that different from Disney adapting Hunchback or The Rescuers or any other of dozens of Disney films based on novels/fairytales. The key difference, however, is that, unlike Hunchback or 101 Dalmatians, Marvel's comic book universe is pretty much interconnected. There pretty much isn't a character who hasn't guest-starred in another character's book, major events encompass all titles, and crossovers occur on a regular basis. And AFAIK, Margery Sharp never wrote a story where Miss Bianca time travels to early 20th century, joins Wendy, Michael, John, and Peter Pan on their journey to Never Land in order to obtain some rare plum that only grows in Tiger Lily's garden, so she could save the life of her paternal grandfather, Basil the mouse detective, and effectively secure her existence in her original timeline, that is considered to be in continuity and canon with all three literary works (fan-fiction notwithstanding

). And that's just one silly example of the level of interaction of Marvel characters in a single narrative, applied to Disney characters.

What I'm saying is, if this adaptation of a lesser-known comic book title is successful, who's to say Disney won't try the same with Fantastic Four or Spider-Man. Like Super Aurora implied, we still don't know the full extent of Marvel/Sony or Marvel/Fox deals, so it is actually possible that, say, X-Men animated feature film can actually be produced by Disney and exist alongside Fox's X-Men films (James Bond films Never Say Never Again and Thunderball come to mind). Or, say, BH6 gets made, and Disney makes DTV sequels to it that feature X-Men/FF; it wouldn't be a theatrical release so Disney would be allowed to make it. The possibilities are endless, but that doesn't mean it's all for the best. If they happen to continue adapting Marvel stories it might lead up to creation (no matter how informal it may be) of another canon within the Disney DAC canon – a Marvel Animated Cinematic Universe of sorts. If they really want to adapt a comic book published by Marvel, I'd much rather they adapt something that's contained to its own universe, something akin to Kick-Ass, 300 or Scott Pilgrim.

And that's pretty much what bothers me. Marvel has their own studio now; they don't need this type of business deal anymore. In fact, it's pretty much certain Disney came up with the whole idea on their own in their ongoing quest to win over male demographic

. Not to mention that any Disney/Marvel adaptation would have to be severely neutered and watered down (as DisneyAnimation88 said), even more so than any other studio's. So they make BH6/Fantastic Four/Spider-Man, advertise it as a Marvel film, both Disney and Marvel fans see it, Disney fans eat it up (we're not that bothered by differences from the source material, as evident by the near-universal love for everything from Snow White to Winnie the Pooh), (some) Marvel fans end up hating it, and end up projecting their discontent to other future Disney/Marvel films that dare venture away from the comic book. Suddenly, Guardians of the Galaxy becomes "cheesy and Disneyfied" and Thor 3 becomes "campy and childish", and Disney will be blamed for meddling into Marvel's business and having negative impact on it, which was what everyone feared from the moment Disney announced their acquisition of Marvel.

Either way, like many of you have said, this is still all in the planning stage, and nothing has been confirmed yet, so there's not much point in fretting over it. Regardless of my own feelings for the project, I'm really anxious to see where this is all going. Besides, even though Super Aurora said that Marvel fans don't care much about this team anyway, from what I've read of their reactions, they actually seem to be surprisingly positive, and if they're fine with it... well, I guess it's somewhat okay then.

DisneyDude2010 · Post by **DisneyDude2010** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:09 am

PatrickvD · Post by **PatrickvD** » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:21 pm

Disney Duster wrote:Patrickvd, I exaggerated with the R stuff only to prove a point. If they just made any family entertainment that was top quality, they would be Pixar, the would be Steven Spielberg, all people associated with Disney, but there's something different that makes them Disney and and not those other things. If you don't want to believe that and believe Disney is just interchangeable with those other things, fine, be a fan of "amy good family entertainment" instead of something specifically Disney with rules.

You're ignoring what I'm trying to tell you here: you're ruining this message board with your broken record Disney essence crap. I really don't know how to tell you this because I'm desperately trying to stay within the rules of the forum regarding personal attacks. I don't enjoy or support personal attacks to other forum members in any way, but the way you're avoiding my point you're making it very difficult.

My ORIGINAL point was that every time an image, clip or synopsis from an upcoming feature is released I and many others are forced to skip through an entire page of people debating you like I am doing right now, because you're instantly responding to every bit of news with the same 'Walt would not approve'-claim.... Here I go once more:

WE GET IT.

I am well aware that I'm enabling this discussion by responding to you, so consider this one my very last one ever. I hope I can encourage everyone else that is as annoyed by you to do the same.

As for this film, I'm curious to see where it leads. I think it was smart to go with such an known property. That way they can do their own take on the material and avoid heavy expectations from the fan community. A Disney animated Spider-Man or something is just asking for trouble.

But from what I understand, this news leaked and it's very far from going into full production. We'll see.

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 8:23 pm

It's not just that Walt wouldn't approve, it's that it's just not how Disney is. You don't think there's a way Disney is? They've no identity? I pointed out something DIFFERENT about how they are, not the same broken record crap you say, I pointed out how this time they are now doing the work for ANOTER COMPANY INTSEAD OF THEIR OWN COMPANY! So don't say I'm being the same.

DisneyEra · Post by **DisneyEra** » Sat Jul 07, 2012 10:45 pm

This is a new era for Disney Animation. Pixar already has 3 films coming after next years Monsters U! But no one knew what WDA was gonna be doing after Wreck it Ralph. Frozen was just recently announced by Disney last month. But beyond that, it was a huge mystery! After the huge sucess of The Avengers, it was clear Marvel was the HOT property to film. So many heroes & groups to choose from. If Big Hero 6 is what they chose, I say, so be it! Lets see how this turns out. Next summer's Comic Con & D23, we should see get LOTS of info! But until then, it's anyone's guess how it will turn out. I can wait to see what will become of this!

DisneyAnimation88 · Post by **DisneyAnimation88** » Sun Jul 08, 2012 5:55 am

Mooky wrote:Hello, we are Disney and Pixar, kings of broken promises and masters of deception, we're out of touch with reality and we like to change our minds A LOT

How are they masters of deception or out of touch with reality? Perhaps you could question a few of the decisions that they've made in recent years but that's the case with every film studio.

Mooky wrote:"People accuse us of planting sexual subliminal and racist messages in our movies. So, instead if disputing, explaining or addressing them in any way, we will remove every instance of questionable content in its entirety. It totally won't look like we’re covering something up."

To be fair, when Disney have tried to explain these controversies, the SFX/SEX cloud in The Lion King for example, no one really believes them anyway.

Mooky wrote:"Following Home on the Range we are completely stopping the production of hand-drawn films. JK, here's Princess and the Frog for you."

If the leadership of the company hadn't changed then I'm sure that this would have happened. Thankfully Iger replaced Eisner and had the good sense to repair Disney's relationship with Pixar and work out a deal with John Lasseter and Ed Catmull to take over WDAS and they made the decision to bring back hand-drawn animation. In this case, Disney didn't lie or deceive anyone, a new regime came in that reversed the decision of the old one.

Mooky wrote:What I'm saying is, if this adaptation of a lesser-known comic book title is successful, who's to say Disney won't try the same with Fantastic Four or Spider-Man.

I really don't think Disney are going to touch those films and I seriously doubt Marvel would want to go down that route either simply because their live action films are making so much money; what is going to make more money, an animated Fantastic Four film or a rebooted live-action Fantastic Four franchise? While the reaction from Marvel fans to Big Hero 6 might been quite positive, I really doubt that the same could be said if WDAS produced a film based on an iconic Marvel property. If an obscure Marvel property can draw an audience and make money for Disney, why wouldn't they find another obscure character amongst the hundreds of obscure characters that Marvel owns to do the same again in the future? I really don't think that there's any way we're going to see a WDAS production of Fantastic Four or X-Men or Thor or The Avengers. I might be proven wrong in the future, who knows, but to me if Disney were going to go down that route then they would have done so already given how successful Marvel films are proving with today's audiences. Why would they wait and risk losing some of that audience? After seeing the millions and millions that The Avengers has grossed all around the world, wouldn't now have been the ideal time to take advantage of Marvel's popularity and announce a WDAS film based on a major Marvel property? Maybe it's just me but the fact that WDAS have instead turned their attention to an obscure Marvel property has led me to believe that WDAS has no interest in Fantastic Four, X-Men, Thor or any of the other major Marvel characters but, if big Hero 6 is successful, would look to take adavantage of other obscure Marvel properties.

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:20 am

I'm actually quite excited for this project. It's about time WDAS made a superhero movie.

DisneyEra · Post by **DisneyEra** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:43 am

On Boxofficemojo.com under Schedule, there's this:

Marvel Untitled/Buena Vista/new date 8/1/14 old date 5/16/14

Could this be the release date for Big Hero 6? I don't think Guardians of the Galaxy would open in August.

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:29 am

DisneyEra wrote:Could this be the release date for Big Hero 6?

No, it's the release date for Guardians of the Galaxy.

Neal · Post by **Neal** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:18 am

I know nothing about the BH6 franchise but I hope they do not change all the names to be more American. I think this sounds very unique and interesting but I fear a Disney suit saying "Wasabi-No-Ginger? Ebon Samurai? - kids won't understand it. Let's name them Karate Kid and Mustard Girl."

jazzflower92 · Post by **jazzflower92** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:11 am

Neal wrote:I know nothing about the BH6 franchise but I hope they do not change all the names to be more American. I think this sounds very unique and interesting but I fear a Disney suit saying "Wasabi-No-Ginger? Ebon Samurai? - kids won't understand it. Let's name them Karate Kid and Mustard Girl."

The Karate Kid is already taken by DC Comics so they might have to do something else.But come on Disney needs a movie showing a total dedication to all things Japanese.I mean Japan is one country they should be making a movie about because if you read Walt Disney actually inspired Osamu Tenzu who is considered the Walt Disney of Japan and the godfather of manga/anime.I think if they are going to do this right I hope they better give respects to Mr.Tenzu and most of all their friend Hayao Miyazki as well.

And here is the tv tropes page for the late great Mr.Tenzu.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OsamuTezuka

SWillie! · Post by **SWillie!** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:43 am

While I agree that they shouldn't change things just for the sake of changing them to be more "American".... I can't be the only one who thinks "Wasabi-No-Ginger" is a horrible, horrible, horrible name for a character. Yes, I don't know the story and all, but come on. That is not appealing at all.

I hope they change a few them - not to be more American, but to be less shitty.

jazzflower92 · Post by **jazzflower92** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:49 am

SWillie! wrote:While I agree that they shouldn't change things just for the sake of changing them to be more "American".... I can't be the only one who thinks "Wasabi-No-Ginger" is a horrible, horrible, horrible name for a character. Yes, I don't know the story and all, but come on. That is not appealing at all.

I hope they change a few them - not to be more American, but to be less shitty.

I don't know I have seen Japanese stuff and a crazy name like Wasabi-No-Ginger would actually fit right in.Believe me I have read tons about Japanese pop culture and a name like that would defiantly be something that could be considered acceptable for a Japanese superhero.

DisneyEra · Post by **DisneyEra** » Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:23 pm

Well, if Disney doesn't want to use Japanese names for the characters in BH6 they can just use names like the characters for Dreamworks Happy SmekDay! The main charater's names are "Tip & J Lo"!!

Super Aurora · Post by **Super Aurora** » Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:54 pm

Disney Duster wrote:
Super Aurora wrote: No, the 1955 one the diamond boulder also falls on top of you like the '71 ver. Go ask Tim.
I actually know a lot about the rides partly through having talked to Tim before and my own looking. In the original 1955 one, the witch was pushing a boulder on you...but she fell and died because as you left the scene you heard the same scream she makes when she fell and died in the movie, so you survived, so good won.

Just talked to Tim on this, he says he doesn't know for sure. So If he doesn't know(who knows tons more than ever you do on the theme parks), than you sure as hell don't know and making shit up.

Even if we ignore this example, there still Mr. Toad's wild ride where you die and go to Hell, or in Peter Pan where Smee just ...shoots you.

My point still stands.

EDIT: tim went and found anwser and it says exactly what I said. Here's what Tim said: "Anyway, I looked it up in my E-Ticket magazine issue on the original Snow White. To quote:
"In her final appearance, the Witch attempted to pry boulders from high on the cliff top onto the cringing people in their vehicles below...a cackling laugh...a flash of lightning...a crash of doors...and it was back out in Fantasyland.""

Disney Duster · Post by **Disney Duster** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:52 am

Doesn't the "flash of lightning" kill her?

Anyway evil "winning" for a fun thrill is different than promoting it as a message in movies. I do see your point but hopefully you get mine too.

Sotiris · Post by **Sotiris** » Tue Jul 17, 2012 3:40 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_fsoeV0AUM

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

Big Hero 6