Lazario wrote:[...] because you want to look like competition for UD's big gun, Goliath. Sorry to burst your bubble but you're never going to be him.
Disneycember Month by Doug Walker of TGWTG
-
Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
Did you not listen to a word I said? Archdeacon, priest were status. That's why they had such high positions and power. being a priest was no so call "job" back in those times. You had to train and study(sometimes be bought into) to be high religious position.Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie and Super Aurora, then what it is is this: a judge is kind of close to and at least not the opposite of an archdeacon like a peasant or thief is the opposite of royalty; you can not be born into being either of those things as a status like you can a peasant or royalty;an archdeacon and a priest are jobs whereas being a peasant or royalty are statuses of being either high and low
And thieves aren't statuses. thieves can even be knights or nobles.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
No, no, no, no, no...I'm not saying Duster needs to be banned because of his opinions. I suggested it earlier because of his attitude towards responses. He refuses to listen to the points made by others, then brings up his already disproven points once again. Rinse and repeat. Furthermore, he continuously brings threads off-topic due to his blithering about the 'Disney Essence'. Now I know this thread is going off-topic, but if it wasn't, it would be dead - Disneycember's over. Duster's off-topic posts are often in busy threads, disrupting them.enigmawing wrote:Sure, you're free to argue, debate, disagree, point out whatever you feel is a flaw . . . but being "irritated" by another member is no reason to suggest banning them. What I was saying earlier is that if you seriously get irritated enough to claim that someone needs to be banned over expressing an opinion (that's not hate-speech or a personal attack), you simply need to walk away.
Maybe I will, but then again - Duster is hilarious.enigmawing wrote:I believe the mods have also made it clear in the past that it's inappropriate to discuss why other members should supposedly get banned. If there is an issue happening that you feel is deserving of disciplinary action, discuss it privately with the admins rather than dragging it out here.
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14024
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Well, even though Frollo was changed in that way, did he still have a very high status and was able to do all the things from the book? As in tracking down and punishing gypsies, keeping Quasimodo in the tower, watching the Festival of Fools, making the city be burned to find Esmeralda, burning Esmeralda at the stake? Meanwhile the book Rapunzel couldn't have done any of the things a princess could have, and Flynn as a thief couldn't do any of the things a prince could have.Super Aurora wrote:Did you not listen to a word I said? Archdeacon, priest were status. That's why they had such high positions and power. being a priest was no so call "job" back in those times. You had to train and study(sometimes be bought into) to be high religious position.Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie and Super Aurora, then what it is is this: a judge is kind of close to and at least not the opposite of an archdeacon like a peasant or thief is the opposite of royalty; you can not be born into being either of those things as a status like you can a peasant or royalty;an archdeacon and a priest are jobs whereas being a peasant or royalty are statuses of being either high and low
And thieves aren't statuses. thieves can even be knights or nobles.
And remember, Archdeacon or judge are still not a status you are born into, it's not that kind of status.
Only in your and some other people's opinion. Meanwhile, my opinion is that you are not listening, or at least not understanding, me. I wish I knew the right words...but I'll keep trying.Dr Frankenollie wrote:No, no, no, no, no...I'm not saying Duster needs to be banned because of his opinions. I suggested it earlier because of his attitude towards responses. He refuses to listen to the points made by others, then brings up his already disproven points once again. Rinse and repeat. Furthermore, he continuously brings threads off-topic due to his blithering about the 'Disney Essence'. Now I know this thread is going off-topic, but if it wasn't, it would be dead - Disneycember's over. Duster's off-topic posts are often in busy threads, disrupting them.
-
Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
Frollo in the book is almost completely different person. In the book he actually took in Quasimodo in out of sympathy as in the book the gypsy abandon him(and also kidnap Esmeralda. Who was not BORN a gypsy).Disney Duster wrote: Well, even though Frollo was changed in that way, did he still have a very high status and was able to do all the things from the book? As in tracking down and punishing gypsies, keeping Quasimodo in the tower, watching the Festival of Fools, making the city be burned to find Esmeralda, burning Esmeralda at the stake?
I can't remember if he watched the festival of fools(is actually was a real event back in that time in real life) in the book. Those I do know he wasn't out on an agenda to punish gypsies nor tried to burn down the city for Esmeralda.
Only similar thing in common is that they both have conflicting lust for Esmeralda. Though Frollo tried to have her hung(she dies from being hung not burned) after he got rejected by her.
First off, why does it matter?Disney Duster wrote: Meanwhile the book Rapunzel couldn't have done any of the things a princess could have, and Flynn as a thief couldn't do any of the things a prince could have.
second off, They can do the Princess/prince thing now after end of the story. As I said before, in the end whatever you were born of doesn't matter
as they end up as gaining that status anyway as their "happily ever after."
The reason we like this movie and the switch was good was that it gave the two characters a good sense of journey and adventure as well as they getting to know each other and learn from each other.
Also as I said earlier(which i can't believe I didn't bring this up earlier as a counterpoint) Esmeralda in the book wasn't born a gypsy either and was kidnap by them when she was young child. Since in the movie she's a gyspy from the start, by your logic you used in for Rapunzel, HoND is "un-disney" as well by your definition.
Again why does this matter.Disney Duster wrote:And remember, Archdeacon or judge are still not a status you are born into, it's not that kind of status.
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
But... but... but... HonD doesn't involve royalty, so it doesn't count!!!Super Aurora wrote:Also as I said earlier(which i can't believe I didn't bring this up earlier as a counterpoint) Esmeralda in the book wasn't born a gypsy either and was kidnap by them when she was young child. Since in the movie she's a gyspy from the start, by your logic you used in for Rapunzel, HoND is "un-disney" as well by your definition.
-
Super Aurora
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4835
- Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 7:59 am
Yeah, he'll probably say something along the lines like that.Goliath wrote: But... but... but... HonD doesn't involve royalty, so it doesn't count!!!
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif
-
ProfessorRatigan
- Special Edition
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:10 pm
- Location: Arkansas
Yes, in the original Victor Hugo novel Claude Frollo was the Archdeacon of Notre Dame and raised Quasimodo out of genuine sympathy.
But...when he saw Esmeralda he immediately began to lust for her. This brought about a sense of conflict within him, as he was a priest and therefore had to remain celibate. He told Quasi to kidnap her and he attempted to do so on Frollo's orders and Quasi was captured by the crowd at the Feast of Fools and punished while Frollo watched. Esmeralda felt sorry for Quasi and gave him some water while he was being humiliated by the crowd and Quasi fell in love with her, too, for showing him kindness.
Esmeralda meantime, fell in love with Phoebus, who is a petty jerk in the book, who only wanted her for sex. Frollo attempts to kill Phoebus by stabbing him in a fit of jealously, but Esmeralda is blamed for the crime and sentenced to be hanged. Frollo watches from the top of Notre Dame as she is hung and laughs, Quasi throws Frollo off the top of the Notre Dame to his death and entombs himself with Esmeralda's corpse and dies himself as a result of starvation. Phoebus goes off and gets hitched to a woman he was engaged to named...Fleur, I believe.
Hope that helped clear things up a bit. But, yes, I see what Duster is saying: if you were a holyman then unlike being a royal, you weren't BORN into power or influence, BUT you did train to be a priest in seminary and would, in the medieval dark ages, wield A LOT of influence and therefore would be regionally just as, if not more powerful, than royal-folk if you were say, a Cardinal or somesuch. An Archdeacon like Frollo in the novel could not have the amount of power a Judge like Frollo in the film would have, which is why the filmmakers changed it, I believe. They wanted him to wield a scary-amount of influence over Paris. And it worked to the film's advantage. Although, in the novel, Claude Frollo had a brother named Jehan. I don't see why Disney didn't make the Archdeacon in the film be Frollo's brother. It would have made an interesting connection between them as characters in the film. And would explain why he let Frollo hide Quasi in the belltower a little better perhaps. But that's just a nitpick, I guess.
But...when he saw Esmeralda he immediately began to lust for her. This brought about a sense of conflict within him, as he was a priest and therefore had to remain celibate. He told Quasi to kidnap her and he attempted to do so on Frollo's orders and Quasi was captured by the crowd at the Feast of Fools and punished while Frollo watched. Esmeralda felt sorry for Quasi and gave him some water while he was being humiliated by the crowd and Quasi fell in love with her, too, for showing him kindness.
Esmeralda meantime, fell in love with Phoebus, who is a petty jerk in the book, who only wanted her for sex. Frollo attempts to kill Phoebus by stabbing him in a fit of jealously, but Esmeralda is blamed for the crime and sentenced to be hanged. Frollo watches from the top of Notre Dame as she is hung and laughs, Quasi throws Frollo off the top of the Notre Dame to his death and entombs himself with Esmeralda's corpse and dies himself as a result of starvation. Phoebus goes off and gets hitched to a woman he was engaged to named...Fleur, I believe.
Hope that helped clear things up a bit. But, yes, I see what Duster is saying: if you were a holyman then unlike being a royal, you weren't BORN into power or influence, BUT you did train to be a priest in seminary and would, in the medieval dark ages, wield A LOT of influence and therefore would be regionally just as, if not more powerful, than royal-folk if you were say, a Cardinal or somesuch. An Archdeacon like Frollo in the novel could not have the amount of power a Judge like Frollo in the film would have, which is why the filmmakers changed it, I believe. They wanted him to wield a scary-amount of influence over Paris. And it worked to the film's advantage. Although, in the novel, Claude Frollo had a brother named Jehan. I don't see why Disney didn't make the Archdeacon in the film be Frollo's brother. It would have made an interesting connection between them as characters in the film. And would explain why he let Frollo hide Quasi in the belltower a little better perhaps. But that's just a nitpick, I guess.
-
Disney Duster
- Ultimate Collector's Edition
- Posts: 14024
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 6:02 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: America
Thanks ProfessorRatigan that was great! Though I also am now confused when Quasimodo says "Why was I not made of stone like thee?" One of the best freakin' lines from any movie I've seen (I watched an old black and white version of Hunchback around when the movie came out).
Super Aurora, well when Esmeralda was not a gypsy, was she something equivalent to the status of a princess, or was she a peasant, who more less could have the same status as a gypsy?
Anyway, from what you've been saying, then the thing I can see that does still make Hunchback very Disney is that Walt was careful to tread on religious elements in his day and changed things for that purpose, and so you can see why it's very Disney to not make Frollo a celibate priest. I did mention this earlier as one possible reason. It's very similar to the reason that Disney will never do a sad, tragic, depressing ending even if the original story had it.
Super Aurora, well when Esmeralda was not a gypsy, was she something equivalent to the status of a princess, or was she a peasant, who more less could have the same status as a gypsy?
Anyway, from what you've been saying, then the thing I can see that does still make Hunchback very Disney is that Walt was careful to tread on religious elements in his day and changed things for that purpose, and so you can see why it's very Disney to not make Frollo a celibate priest. I did mention this earlier as one possible reason. It's very similar to the reason that Disney will never do a sad, tragic, depressing ending even if the original story had it.
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
Why. Does. It. Matter....WHY?!Disney Duster wrote:Super Aurora, well when Esmeralda was not a gypsy, was she something equivalent to the status of a princess, or was she a peasant, who more less could have the same status as a gypsy?
Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, from what you've been saying, then the thing I can see that does still make Hunchback very Disney is that Walt was careful to tread on religious elements in his day and changed things for that purpose, and so you can see why it's very Disney to not make Frollo a celibate priest.
-
slave2moonlight
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4427
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: TX
- Contact:
So, apparently, Doug went back and did a few more Disneycembers because of high requests: Dinosuar, A Goofy Movie, and my all time favorite movie, Who Framed Roger Rabbit
Did you guys know about this? Here's a link:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... lar-demand
I'm just about to watch them, myself.
Did you guys know about this? Here's a link:
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... lar-demand
I'm just about to watch them, myself.
<a href="http://moonlightmotelcomic.com/"><img alt="Check out my published content!" src="http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/ ... 4lxrtt.png" border="0"></a>
-
Dr Frankenollie
- In The Vaults
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 4:19 am
-
jpanimation
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1841
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 12:00 am
Interesting. I can’t believe people still wanted him to review A Goofy Movie. I remember him basically summing up all his thoughts on the movie when he was going over the 11 Nostalgia Critics we’d never see and saying a review was pointless. Having now seen it, I have to agree, it was just a pointless rehash of what he already said.
That said, he was spot on with all three reviews. I will never forget that disappointment of finding out the dinosaurs talk. The trailer was just soo epic. I also agree with Frankenollie, one of the best reviews of Roger Rabbit. Although, I’m still miffed at the absence of Felix the Cat and Popeye the Sailor. I wouldn’t mind a little George Lucasing as far as securing the rights and digitally adding them into the film.
That said, he was spot on with all three reviews. I will never forget that disappointment of finding out the dinosaurs talk. The trailer was just soo epic. I also agree with Frankenollie, one of the best reviews of Roger Rabbit. Although, I’m still miffed at the absence of Felix the Cat and Popeye the Sailor. I wouldn’t mind a little George Lucasing as far as securing the rights and digitally adding them into the film.
-
slave2moonlight
- Diamond Edition
- Posts: 4427
- Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:33 pm
- Location: TX
- Contact:
Though it is my favorite film of all-time, I too have always been disappointed that Popeye wasn't in there somewhere. Yeah, his review of Roger Rabbit was great, though I think all the stuff he mentioned, including some things he didn't, like the setting, all contribute to why people love the movie so much when they are all combined together. I mean, the wrong choice with any of those things and it might not have worked (which I guess is what makes a sequel so scary, but one of the things that makes it something I'd like to see is that they could include characters that weren't in the first maybe, like Popeye).
While I agree with how he felt about Dinosaur, not necessarily for the same reasons. For example, I remember particularly disliking the older dinosaurs, which he cited as good points in the film. I haven't seen it in a LOOONG time though, so I can't comment too much. Need to rewatch it. Honestly though, I don't think I was too bothered by them talking. I can see how it could have been amazing without them talking (with Fantasia-level music), but with better dialogue (and story), I don't think talking dinos should be an instant issue.
And, yeah, the Goofy Movie review was great too, necessary or not. I think it's even better than he gives it credit for though.
It'd be a shame if he didn't finish the DAC canon by reviewing the 3 CGI movies he's lacking now, as a lot of folks have been telling him on the site. In fact, I think those would be sooo interesting, because they are such flawed films. Meet the Robinsons, Chicken Little, and Bolt. I don't really have problems with Bolt, though it wasn't anything remarkable.
While I agree with how he felt about Dinosaur, not necessarily for the same reasons. For example, I remember particularly disliking the older dinosaurs, which he cited as good points in the film. I haven't seen it in a LOOONG time though, so I can't comment too much. Need to rewatch it. Honestly though, I don't think I was too bothered by them talking. I can see how it could have been amazing without them talking (with Fantasia-level music), but with better dialogue (and story), I don't think talking dinos should be an instant issue.
And, yeah, the Goofy Movie review was great too, necessary or not. I think it's even better than he gives it credit for though.
It'd be a shame if he didn't finish the DAC canon by reviewing the 3 CGI movies he's lacking now, as a lot of folks have been telling him on the site. In fact, I think those would be sooo interesting, because they are such flawed films. Meet the Robinsons, Chicken Little, and Bolt. I don't really have problems with Bolt, though it wasn't anything remarkable.
<a href="http://moonlightmotelcomic.com/"><img alt="Check out my published content!" src="http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/ ... 4lxrtt.png" border="0"></a>
I think he kind of underestimated the power of the animation on Roger Rabbit. Yeah, the idea of animation and live action being together has been done, but Roger Rabbit nearly perfected it. It was able to make the 2D characters appear organic and three dimensional in our real world. It adds a lot to the movie, much like Doug said, in that it makes the character seem real and alive, even if they are just characters drawn on paper.
As for the missing CG movies, I think the opinions will be stereotypical: they are flawed, DreamWorks-ish and not Disney classics. I might be wrong since Doug can be surprising like that, but those movies tend to be underrated by the fans because they are not exactly Disney classics like the fab four and such.
Chicken Little is the most flawed of them all, and I used to hate it in my younger days but now I enjoy it. It has an uneven pace and awkward character motivations but it still works. Meet the Robinsons is the best movie in the CG classics line, second only to Tangled. Bolt was good thought indeed nothing special.
As for the missing CG movies, I think the opinions will be stereotypical: they are flawed, DreamWorks-ish and not Disney classics. I might be wrong since Doug can be surprising like that, but those movies tend to be underrated by the fans because they are not exactly Disney classics like the fab four and such.
Chicken Little is the most flawed of them all, and I used to hate it in my younger days but now I enjoy it. It has an uneven pace and awkward character motivations but it still works. Meet the Robinsons is the best movie in the CG classics line, second only to Tangled. Bolt was good thought indeed nothing special.
-
flipnoteguy
- Limited Issue
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:17 pm
He's doing another round this year; this time doing the computer animated films from both Disney and Pixar.
Toy Story
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxIC.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxIC.html?p=1"></embed>
A Bug's Life
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxgC.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxgC.html?p=1"></embed>
Toy Story 2
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxsC.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxsC.html?p=1"></embed>
Toy Story
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxIC.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxIC.html?p=1"></embed>
A Bug's Life
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxgC.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxgC.html?p=1"></embed>
Toy Story 2
<iframe src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxsC.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://blip.tv/play/AYOKlxsC.html?p=1"></embed>
-
PatrickvD
- Signature Collection
- Posts: 5207
- Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 11:34 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Is Doug kidding? I'm like 2 minutes into this and he claims Disney wasn't doing very well at the time of Toy Story's release.
Who does he think he is? Anyone with a functioning brain can look up the year 1995 and see that Disney just released The Lion King and Pocahontas, combining for over a billion dollars in Box Office and VHS sales and four Oscars. While there was indeed a decline after Pocahontas, the early to mid 90s couldn't possibly have been any more profitable for Disney.
He's talking out of his ass and I don't think I'm going to continue watching his opinion on matters he knows absolutely nothing aout.
That. And he called it refreshing that Toy Story was 'a kid's film'. I've never heard anyone refer to Toy Story as a kid's film. It's insulting.
Who does he think he is? Anyone with a functioning brain can look up the year 1995 and see that Disney just released The Lion King and Pocahontas, combining for over a billion dollars in Box Office and VHS sales and four Oscars. While there was indeed a decline after Pocahontas, the early to mid 90s couldn't possibly have been any more profitable for Disney.
He's talking out of his ass and I don't think I'm going to continue watching his opinion on matters he knows absolutely nothing aout.
That. And he called it refreshing that Toy Story was 'a kid's film'. I've never heard anyone refer to Toy Story as a kid's film. It's insulting.
Yeah, that also made me go "what?" when he said that. In the Bug's Life video, he also said A Bug Life and Antz were released in the summer and that Katzenberg left Disney shortly after Toy Story came out. I also remember him saying last year that Fantasia was a big hit in 1940.PatrickvD wrote:Is Doug kidding? I'm like 2 minutes into this and he claims Disney wasn't doing very well at the time of Toy Story's release.
I think it's interesting to hear his opinions on the different animated films, but if he's going to get into the production history of them, he needs to actually do research.
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland
-
FigmentJedi
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 8:06 pm
From the sounds of some recent Bolt review he did, he thinks Meet the Robinsons is as bad as Home on the Range. Made me stop watching through the Bolt video the moment I heard that.slave2moonlight wrote: It'd be a shame if he didn't finish the DAC canon by reviewing the 3 CGI movies he's lacking now, as a lot of folks have been telling him on the site. In fact, I think those would be sooo interesting, because they are such flawed films. Meet the Robinsons, Chicken Little, and Bolt. I don't really have problems with Bolt, though it wasn't anything remarkable.