DVDizzy Forum

Julian Carter wrote:

SpringHeelJack wrote:You have no trouble feeling for some ink on a plastic cel.

Mary sack of doughnuts into pitcher car sleigh. Period.

Pardon???

Marky_198 wrote:They still look like plastic toys to me.
But I get the idea of what they are trying to say, it's just that too many important things and details are missing.
A 30 year old lady does not look the same as a 11 year old.
Also for some reason, she doesn't seem to have any character at all.
It feels empty.

Do you not have a soul?

her prescence is felt throughout the whole film, even after her death. She's actually the driving force of the movie.

And when you actually see her 11 yr-old self, you'll certainly feel differently.

Escapay wrote: If you are able to accept all of the above after having watched that video, and you still fail to find any emotion or heart in it, then maybe, just maybe, I should borrow a sentence you once used on someone else and repeat it back to you: "You shouldn't even speak about the classics on a forum like this."



albert

For that, you get this from me:

BelleGirl wrote:

Julian Carter wrote:Mary sack of doughnuts into pitcher car sleigh. Period.

Pardon???

Oh, good... for a minute, I thought my brain stopped processing words properly.

magicalwands wrote:

Marky_198 wrote:They still look like plastic toys to me.
But I get the idea of what they are trying to say, it's just that too many important things and details are missing.
A 30 year old lady does not look the same as a 11 year old.
Also for some reason, she doesn't seem to have any character at all.
It feels empty.

Do you not have a soul?

His soul has been digitally remastered beyond its original brilliance

pap64 wrote:
His soul has been digitally remastered beyond its original brilliance

(Okay, so a post that simply quotes another and features an emoticon is not exactly considered good forum ettiquette- nor is furthering the off-topic-ness of a thread- but what the heck! I've been on here three years, I can let loose)

Brends wrote:

BelleGirl wrote: Pardon???

Oh, good... for a minute, I thought my brain stopped processing words properly.

Two words can easily explain Jules' sentence:

Word Salad.

Wondy wrote:

Escapay wrote: If you are able to accept all of the above after having watched that video, and you still fail to find any emotion or heart in it, then maybe, just maybe, I should borrow a sentence you once used on someone else and repeat it back to you: "You shouldn't even speak about the classics on a forum like this."



albert

For that, you get this from me:

Thanks, Wondy.

BUT I GET TO BE PAUL RUDD!

UmbrellaFish wrote:(Okay, so a post that simply quotes another and features an emoticon is not exactly considered good forum ettiquette- nor is furthering the off-topic-ness of a thread- but what the heck! I've been on here three years, I can let loose)

Including explanatory text in parentheses kinda negates the whole "a post with just an emoticon".

And to get back to Lady and the Tramp...

I know they intended for Aunt Sarah and her cats to be a sort of "villain" in the movie, but really, did the story need any type of villain at all? On the plus side, we do get the good "Siamese Cat Song". But I always always always HATED Aunt Sarah. She was such a nasty old b!tch.

albert

BelleGirl wrote: I'm a bit annoyed though that some UD'rs claim that in modern Disney animated features every touching scene is marred by a (childish) joke. This simply isn't true.
I challenge you to mention as many of these marred scenes as possible! Just prove your point!

The screaming bird and the guy that ruins the Sphynx' nose in "A whole new world" for example.

Escapay wrote:Two words can easily explain Jules' sentence:

Word Salad.

For a moment there I thought you were gonna say "word vomit."

Marky_198 wrote:

BelleGirl wrote: I'm a bit annoyed though that some UD'rs claim that in modern Disney animated features every touching scene is marred by a (childish) joke. This simply isn't true.
I challenge you to mention as many of these marred scenes as possible! Just prove your point!

The screaming bird and the guy that ruins the Sphynx' nose in "A whole new world" for example.

O that. I never minded that much, for it was quite a happy scene that could stand a joke or two. I think it is romantic, but not any where near something that brings tears to my eyes.Aladdin isn't very deep or touching anyway. (expecting angry responses now )

Escapay wrote:

UmbrellaFish wrote:(Okay, so a post that simply quotes another and features an emoticon is not exactly considered good forum ettiquette- nor is furthering the off-topic-ness of a thread- but what the heck! I've been on here three years, I can let loose)

Including explanatory text in parentheses kinda negates the whole "a post with just an emoticon".

I know, but I was going to mention that.

Hmm... this Lady and the Tramp.... Sounds like a good movie.

Just curious, who made it?

Escapay wrote: I know they intended for Aunt Sarah and her cats to be a sort of "villain" in the movie, but really, did the story need any type of villain at all? On the plus side, we do get the good "Siamese Cat Song". But I always always always HATED Aunt Sarah. She was such a nasty old b!tch.

Well, I think the point of the character was to get Lady out of the house and into the real house and give her a reason to not return immediatelly. Obviously she would never leave with her original owners still in the house. But, with Aunt Sarah and the cats around and tormenting her, we understand why she's not in a hurry to return home. I don't think we would have gotten that beautiful spaghetti scene had the Dears not gone on vacation.

Marky_198 wrote:

BelleGirl wrote: I'm a bit annoyed though that some UD'rs claim that in modern Disney animated features every touching scene is marred by a (childish) joke. This simply isn't true.
I challenge you to mention as many of these marred scenes as possible! Just prove your point!

The screaming bird and the guy that ruins the Sphynx' nose in "A whole new world" for example.

And even then they STILL didn't ruin the romance and magic of the scene.

pap64 wrote:

Marky_198 wrote: The screaming bird and the guy that ruins the Sphynx' nose in "A whole new world" for example.

And even then they STILL didn't ruin the romance and magic of the scene.

Yeah its not like the builder of the Spynx said something about you better have magic carpet insurance because I am suing......INFIDELS IN LOVE JOY RIDING ON A MAGIC CARPET WITHOUT PROPER CARPET TRANSPORTATION INSURANCE

Escapay wrote:I know they intended for Aunt Sarah and her cats to be a sort of "villain" in the movie, but really, did the story need any type of villain at all?

See, I don't think Aunt Sarah was per se a villain. She's a curmudgeonly old broad, to be sure, and the rod up her butt has a rod up it's butt, but I never equated her with a real villain.

...I mean, she DOES send them dog biscuits. It's not like Lady Tremaine sent over a gift card for Cinderella's wedding.

That's true. Si and Am are the real villains, Aunt Sarah's just their dog-hating, baby-and-cat-loving pawn.

The thing is, Aunt Sarah meant well. She just didn't understand Lady's predicament.

Plus she's a cat person! She may even be on the border of being a crazy old cat lady! And we all know how they feel about dogs.

Trust me. There are crazy dog ladies out there, too.

I said this in one of my few Ultimate Disney reviews, but Lady and the Tramp is a rom-com. I'm not belittling it by saying that, but really, if it were to be made today, you'd probably get Jennifer "Obligatory in Rom-Coms" Aniston voicing the role of Lady.

It follows the even-by-then traditional "rules" of a rom-com to perfection. It doesn't have the energy we associate with most 50's rom-coms, but it follows the the rules - female with "breeding" falls for "common" man.

If you think about L&tT there's very little danger, very little action and even very little obstacles. Everything in it is very down to earth and "normal" - except of course its about talking animals nominally (I say, nominally because few of the animals behave like their real-world animal counterparts). L&tT is about character and not much else. If it was made today, it would have a sort of independent, low budget movie vibe to it, rather than a studio blockbuster.

It's not like Walt's other films which did rely on larger than life villains and huge life-or-death struggles and total suspension of disbelief. Look at the two films on either side - Fantasy filled Peter Pan and Sleeping Beauty with the huge dragon battle at the end. Both if filmed in live action today would easily be classed as "blockbuster/effects heavy" movies. The only film that I think L&tT compares to is 101 Dalmatians - but its almost as if Walt had "learned" from L&tT probably perceived dramatic failure by including he over-the-top Cruella in 101 Dalmatians.

Again, I'd like to make clear I'm not belittling Lady and the Tramp by saying this. I find it almost impossible to understand how a film which understands character and character moments so well, could immediately be followed by a film where all form of character and character development was basically ignored or thrown out of the window.