DVDizzy Forum

Sotiris wrote:Personally, I'd like to see something more mature like an animated drama. Everyone's complaining about how animation is not treated equally to live-action but how can it since all animation produced in Hollywood is limited to the family entertainment genre? How can you take real storytelling risks when you are restricted by the family-friendly label? Why can't Hollywood be more like Japan and truly treat animation as a medium to tell stories of all different sorts of genres? Hollywood animation is in desperate need of some diversity.

Just because its a family friendly production doesn't mean it can't get into deep subject manner.Family friendly productions over the years have done topics that would consider above the heads of many of the younger viewers.It can be done in a subtle way that kids can comprehend at a basic level.

Sotiris wrote:Personally, I'd like to see something more mature like an animated drama. Everyone's complaining about how animation is not treated equally to live-action but how can it since all animation produced in Hollywood is limited to the family entertainment genre? How can you take real storytelling risks when you are restricted by the family-friendly label? Why can't Hollywood be more like Japan and truly treat animation as a medium to tell stories of all different sorts of genres? Hollywood animation is in desperate need of some diversity.

Because Hollywood are pussy assholes. That's why.


While Duster says crazy shit, I do agree somewhat along the lines that Marvel franchise and WDAS should remain two different department. It's almost as if you have pixar make a WDAS movie. Leave different department to their own doings. A Disneified Marvel would be a big fuck u to us big comic/Marvel fans and will dumb it down even further than live action movies already does.

Us Marvel Fans do know about The Big Six but it's one of those franchise many of us don't give much a shit about cause we don't care much for it. Whether it's their own take on it or adaption of it we'll see.

jazzflower92 wrote:Just because its a family friendly production doesn't mean it can't get into deep subject manner.

Yes, but it's always up to a point because they're family-friendly movies. I'm not saying that family-friendly films don't have quality storytelling. A lot of them do, and they are great. My point is that animation should not be restricted to only one genre.

Sotiris wrote:Yes, but it's always up to a point because they're family-friendly movies. I'm not saying that family-friendly films don't have quality storytelling. A lot of them do, and they are great. My point is that animation should not be restricted to only one genre.

you mean demograph. Family friendly movies aren't a "genre".

A genre would be: fantasy, sci-fi, mecha, noir, Western, etc

Sotiris wrote:Yes, but it's always up to a point because they're family-friendly movies. I'm not saying that family-friendly films don't have quality storytelling. A lot of them do, and they are great. My point is that animation should not be restricted to only one genre.

Okay,I see your point but then again I think family friendly demographic I think sometimes appeals to me more than demographics aimed at only the adult,young adults,or kids.I think its because its multi-demographic appeal that makes me love family friendly demographics.

jazzflower92 wrote:Okay,I see your point but then again I think family friendly demographic I think sometimes appeals to me more than demographics aimed at only the adult,young adults,or kids.I think its because its multi-demographic appeal that makes me love family friendly demographics.

Yes but do you only like family-friendly films?

Sotiris wrote:Yes but do you only like family-friendly films?

I just have a strong preference for those types of movies because they can either be good and not try to act so called adult all the time.I mean I think some adult movies have their good points but family demographic clicks with me because I am really in touched with my inner child.

Wonderlicious wrote:

PatrickvD wrote: The Fox and the Hound and One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

And I'm sure there are more.

That would be basically every Disney animated feature prior to 2000.

None of those were created by a company, other companies bought them, but none of them were created by a company and had the definitive versions, such as a Marvel comic book.

Super Aurora wrote:I do agree somewhat along the lines that Marvel franchise and WDAS should remain two different department. It's almost as if you have pixar make a WDAS movie. Leave different department to their own doings.

YAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!!

Disney Duster wrote:

Super Aurora wrote:I do agree somewhat along the lines that Marvel franchise and WDAS should remain two different department. It's almost as if you have pixar make a WDAS movie. Leave different department to their own doings.

YAAAAYYYYY!!!!!!!

Man you sound and act like a damn 5 yr old lol.

Anyway, while I did say that, that doesn't take away my acceptance of Marvel in Disney's hands. If handle right like Warner Bros does for DC Comic, Disney can help make some pretty awesome and badass stuff.

I'm not blind by so call "Wholesome Disney Image" BS.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

Mooky wrote:It's nice to have all these characters under the same roof, but this is just a little too close to my comfort zone. I don't want a Disneyized Marvel and I don't want a Marvelized Disney.

I agree. For me, the saving grace of this particular film is that it seems to be so obscure that Disney can make significant changes without upsetting a rabid Marvel fanbase. But a film like this is always going to polarize people and it's inevitable that some aren't going to be happy with it.

Fully agreed. Either way, I'm curious to know how things are going to turn out.

DisneyDude2010 wrote:

PatrickvD wrote: The Fox and the Hound and One Hundred and One Dalmatians.

And I'm sure there are more.

The Jungle Book

Hence the etc. part of my original post .

Sotiris wrote:

Mooky wrote:That's why I say why bother at all, why not just create something 'original', an original Disney superhero team where you don't have to worry about rules and legions of fanboys?

I think that's why they chose Big Hero 6. They can have the best of both worlds. It's based on a Marvel property which will help to market the film and attract the male demographic but it's also very obscure so there aren't any hardcore fans who will be pissed off with possible changes. When the news broke the overwhelming response online, even from big Marvel fans, was that they never heard of Big Hero 6.

But see, if it's that obscure, then how can they count on attracting boys simply by Marvel brand recognition? They might as well develop their own superhero team and accomplish the same by marketing it as 'from the studio that brought you The Incredibles' (not technically true, but since when was Disney above lying to sell a movie?) without bringing Marvel into the whole mess.

Mooky wrote:They might as well develop their own superhero team and accomplish the same by marketing it as 'from the studio that brought you The Incredibles' (not technically true, but since when was Disney above lying to sell a movie?) without bringing Marvel into the whole mess.

I suppose that with Disney now owning something like 4000 Marvel characters, it makes sense to them to perhaps take advantage of those characters that are obscure like Big Hero 6.

My main concern when Disney purchased Marvel was that Bob Iger or some other high-ranking executive would put pressure on WDAS to immediately put Marvel films into production. But that hasn't happened; Sotiris posted a video in the Brave thread I believe where John Lasseter is asked about a possible Marvel/Disney or Marvel/Pixar film and the impression I got was that Lasseter won't be strongarmed into doing anything with Marvel but would consider it if someone could convince him that a particular Marvel property could be made to fit with the Disney style of storytelling. I've said it before and it is just my opinion, but I would be shocked if this comic hasn't gone through some significant changes at the hands of Don Hall for it to satisfy Lasseter; Disney Duster has made the point in the past that Disney changes the backgrounds of characters in stories that they adapt and I definitely think that that is going to happen with Big Hero 6 while I think the story might also be different from those of the comic series. Until we know more about the film all we can do is speculate but I really do believe that if it does see the light of day that it will fit with the themes and storytelling style that Disney is synonymous with.

Super Aurora wrote:Man you sound and act like a damn 5 yr old lol.

Yea I get what you mean lol but I don't mind. Disney is for kids at heart anyway.

Super Aurora wrote:Anyway, while I did say that, that doesn't take away my acceptance of Marvel in Disney's hands. If handle right like Warner Bros does for DC Comic, Disney can help make some pretty awesome and badass stuff.

I'm not blind by so call "Wholesome Disney Image" BS.

But Warner doesn't have any...well don't you think Disney has like, you know, a...like a type, like, a feeling, something they are about and their pictures have in common? They have a uniformity, at least when it comes to their animated films, you know, original but fairly traditional/faithful takes on stories that weren't created by other companies (the fairly traditional/faithful thing broken by Robin Hood, Dinosaur, and Tangled, all made after Walt died).

Disney Duster wrote: Tangled, all made after Walt died).

Duster you are extremely childish.
Films when Walt made when he was alive weren't exactly faithful to the original!

This never ending discussion is SO annoying.

Disney Animation Studios can make whatever they hell they want to make. There is no set of rules that need to be check-boxed to meet Duster's ridiculous demands.

Also, this movie is so early in development, there's probably not a single finished storyboard ready. This thing leaked. Remember King of the Elves? That had a page on the official website. Gone.

DisneyDude2010 wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: Tangled, all made after Walt died).

Duster you are extremely childish.
Films when Walt made when he was alive weren't exactly faithful to the original!

I said fairly faithful. There was a certain degree. You're childish for acting so rude toward me. And you obviously love Winnie the Pooh so aimed at children so I don't see why you're complaining if people act like children.

PatrickvD wrote:This never ending discussion is SO annoying.

Disney Animation Studios can make whatever they hell they want to make. There is no set of rules that need to be check-boxed to meet Duster's ridiculous demands.

Right. They can make R-rated stories where evil wins over good and there's many sex scenes. That doesn't feel wrong to you and against a kind of rules of what Disney is to you in any way.

Disney Duster wrote:Right. They can make R-rated stories where evil wins over good and there's many sex scenes. That doesn't feel wrong to you and against a kind of rules of what Disney is to you in any way.

Yep. That's what exactly what he said.

Disney Duster wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:This never ending discussion is SO annoying.

Disney Animation Studios can make whatever they hell they want to make. There is no set of rules that need to be check-boxed to meet Duster's ridiculous demands.

Right. They can make R-rated stories where evil wins over good and there's many sex scenes. That doesn't feel wrong to you and against a kind of rules of what Disney is to you in any way.

What the hell are you talking about?

Disney Duster wrote: Right. They can make R-rated stories where evil wins over good and there's many sex scenes. That doesn't feel wrong to you and against a kind of rules of what Disney is to you in any way.

1971-1994




















.........in Fantasyland.

PatrickvD wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Right. They can make R-rated stories where evil wins over good and there's many sex scenes. That doesn't feel wrong to you and against a kind of rules of what Disney is to you in any way.

What the hell are you talking about?

I could say the same for you when you said the thing which had me give that answer:

PatrickvD wrote:Disney Animation Studios can make whatever they hell they want to make.

Which means according to you they could make what you quoted me saying they could make.

Super Aurora wrote:1971-1994

Is that a Disney movie to suggest the moral that evil really wins? Was it made when Walt was alive? No? Okay then.

Disney Duster wrote:

DisneyDude2010 wrote: Duster you are extremely childish.
Films when Walt made when he was alive weren't exactly faithful to the original!

I said fairly faithful. There was a certain degree. You're childish for acting so rude toward me. And you obviously love Winnie the Pooh so aimed at children so I don't see why you're complaining if people act like children.

I'm not acting rude I'm just stating the fact that YOU think animation during Walt's Life has this "ESSENCE" not present in current animation. Which I believe is ridiculous.
"Obviously" Winnie the Pooh being my Icon is reference to it being WDAS last release (not because i LOVE it) and Tangled the previous being my banner. And please you can't really say much with Cinderella as your Icon Contradictory or what? I'm not arguing with you it's just all you seem to do is moan how stuff is "unDisney" and "Walt wouldn't of wanted this" which gets extremely annoying, it wouldn't be so annoying if you actually had some facts to back up your information