DVDizzy Forum

I wouldn't waste your time with Local, Enigma. It's obvious he or she just posts whatever to get people upset.

I wonder will Paul Anka's song work on him/her?

http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... tious.html

A commenter said:

They have Tangled or whatever it is called and the Winnie the Pooh movie. After that is Joe Jump but it is not done and that is it. I know they have Jack and the Beanstalk and Ron and John have their film on the fast track but that's it.

[quote]Jack and the Beanstalk[quote]

Huh?

I've never heard that they're making that. Is this something only he knows?

Jack and the Beanstalk? Really? Interesting. So, if this gets made, will it be the first time we get two versions of the same story in the canon (since we already have the Mickey and the Beanstalk segment in Fan and Fancy Free)?

estefan wrote:Jack and the Beanstalk? Really? Interesting. So, if this gets made, will it be the first time we get two versions of the same story in the canon (since we already have the Mickey and the Beanstalk segment in Fan and Fancy Free)?

Chicken Little.

Super Aurora wrote:

estefan wrote:So, if this gets made, will it be the first time we get two versions of the same story in the canon (since we already have the Mickey and the Beanstalk segment in Fan and Fancy Free)?

Chicken Little.

'Chicken Little' was a cartoon (short subject) that wasn't in the Animated Classics 'canon'.

I read that yesterday in the comments, and I really hoped that that he was wrong. I can't stand the story of Jack and the Beanstalk!!! I think if Disney wants to do something boyish, this isn't the way to go. People know the story of Jack and the Beanstalk way to well. Rapunzel is different since I think most people only know its about a girl with long hair that her hero climbs to rescue her.

Goliath wrote: 'Chicken Little' was a cartoon (short subject) that wasn't in the Animated Classics 'canon'.

I don't know if that was just a typo, but it's both a short subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Little_(1943_film)

and an animated classic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Little_(2005_film)

And, there's also a Cinderella Laugh-O-Gram as well as a Cinderella animated classic...

Babaloo wrote:Rapunzel is different since I think most people only know its about a girl with long hair that her hero climbs to rescue her.

Well, who's to say that Disney's newest "Jack and the Beanstalk" retelling won't be pretty different from the original story?!

blackcauldron85 wrote:Well, who's to say that Disney's newest "Jack and the Beanstalk" retelling won't be pretty different from the original story?!

I don't know it just doesn't seem like there's much to do with the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. With story, characters, merchandising, etc. IMO it's not a very appealing story.

Babaloo wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote:Well, who's to say that Disney's newest "Jack and the Beanstalk" retelling won't be pretty different from the original story?!

I don't know it just doesn't seem like there's much to do with the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. With story, characters, merchandising, etc. IMO it's not a very appealing story.

Cute animal sidekicks!?

But seriously, the giant could make a cool villain. And if they fleshed out Jack and his mother (without getting too close to Jim and Sarah Hawkins, of course), they could have a really cool story! Oh, yeah, and if it was a musical!

Margos wrote:

Babaloo wrote: I don't know it just doesn't seem like there's much to do with the story of Jack and the Beanstalk. With story, characters, merchandising, etc. IMO it's not a very appealing story.

Cute animal sidekicks!?

But seriously, the giant could make a cool villain. And if they fleshed out Jack and his mother (without getting too close to Jim and Sarah Hawkins, of course), they could have a really cool story! Oh, yeah, and if it was a musical!

Didn't Disney already do an adaptation of Jack and the Beanstalk in Fun and Fancy Free?

DisneyJedi wrote: Didn't Disney already do an adaptation of Jack and the Beanstalk in Fun and Fancy Free?

Yes.

There's a lot Disney could do to change some things in the story to make it somewhat different without rewriting the plot. If done right, I can see The Giant being a great villain if they gave him more depth in character. The other characters could be good too if they were to be more developed. The question is if this might be hand-drawn or CGI.

Honestly, I think the JatB story would be a lot better if it were hand-drawn.

They have Tangled or whatever it is called and the Winnie the Pooh movie. After that is Joe Jump but it is not done and that is it. I know they have Jack and the Beanstalk and Ron and John have their film on the fast track but that's it.

Sounds good.

So, we get Tangled in November, Winnie the Pooh (which can't be it's official name, I think it would be cute if it were "The Further Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" or something similar).

Now, is Joe Jump supposed to be 2-D. For that matter, what the heck is it about? Do we know yet?

Jack in the Beanstalk seems cool, but it sounds like the type of project that could easily be "Dream Works"-ified, so that's a little scary. I hope it's a touching 2-D comedy...

And a Ron and John flick is on the fast-track! That's spectacular! And surely, as long as they're on the project, it should 2-D, wouldn't it?

Much better news overall than what we've heard in the past. Good!

UmbrellaFish wrote: Now, is Joe Jump supposed to be 2-D. For that matter, what the heck is it about? Do we know yet?

At one point, a while ago, the plot description was:
"the movie will tell the "fish out of water" story of "a video game character from the PacMan era, whose game is no longer played. He finds a way to 'jump' into today's high-tech games..." "

And it's supposed to be in CGI...

And here's an article about the evolution of the film:

http://blueskydisney.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -jump.html

Thanks!

I suppose, though, given the premise of the film, CGI is a better medium for this one.

blackcauldron85 wrote: I don't know if that was just a typo, but it's both a short subject:

and an animated classic

Yes, I know that, but SuperAurora implied that 'Chicken Little' was told twice in the Animated Classics canon. Which clearly isn't true.

Goliath wrote: Yes, I know that, but SuperAurora implied that 'Chicken Little' was told twice in the Animated Classics canon. Which clearly isn't true.

Ohhhh, yeah, I missed that. Sorry!

Goliath wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote: I don't know if that was just a typo, but it's both a short subject:

and an animated classic

Yes, I know that, but SuperAurora implied that 'Chicken Little' was told twice in the Animated Classics canon. Which clearly isn't true.

What's up with this Classic canon BS? Both of these were done by WDAS did it not? Therefor it would count as twice.