Disney Duster wrote:I'm sad because people aren't reading what I'm saying. But I'm also happy because I know that I already explained why I'm right about what I say and the answers to their questions, so them not reading them is just ignoring them.
Disney Duster I've read most of your posts here, and you have, in no way, explained
consistent or
accurate or
factual reason to why you're right. It'd be okay if your opinion was backed up by
actual facts or problems you had with the movie, but this isn't the case. Not only have you been making up facts to fit your need, but you've been inconsistent and blatantly repeating the same things over and over again. Circular logic won't get you anywhere in a real world debate, so don't expect to get away with it with Disney fans.
Your posts are not only painful to read (I'd rather be castrated), but are unnecessarily long and full of filler that has no real rhyme or meaning. The above paragraph stands, making up facts isn't forming an opinion; it's forming a fantasy that is governed by your own rules. But the fact is that fantasy isn't reality, and it's time for you to stop pretending to be a
true connoisseur such as many fans here actually are (and myself). Other people have explained this in bits, but I'm going to lay it out for you why everything in your post is wrong.
1. Stop repeating yourself.
Disney Duster wrote:I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.
Disney Duster wrote:I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.
Disney Duster wrote:I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.
No Duster, this isn't as smart as you think it is. It's just as stupid as you said it the first time, not need to say it two more times.
2. Stop claiming you know what Disney is if you do not understand the full scope of what Disney has done in the past.
I'll preface this one. Throughout this thread, you've been going on about how Tangled isn't true to Walt Disney form by making up non-facts about how different it is in adaptation compared to the
classics such as The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. The truth is, you have not made one coherent response why you believe this, as people have have already deconstructed why your opinion is basically non-existent - but rather is just a series of claiming stuff over and over again. This isn't arguing on your part, this is just stupidity, and
bad posting conduct. I've been foruming for
7 years now straight, and I can tell you that you are one of the most offensive posters I've ever encountered on the internet; and I frequent 4chan. It isn't your "opinion" but the fact that you're using lies and misinformation to support it. I've encountered furries, pedophiles, extreme racists, and misogynist on the internet and none are as bad as the stuff I've been seeing you posting all over these forums.
Now let me go through this post and tell you why you really need to re-asses your outlook on life, and re-asses how you post on a civil forum in general.
Disney Duster wrote:I already explained that the story needed to keep the characters' background to be Disney and they still could have and had the story.
This doesn't make any sense. There is no "Disney" style aside from the art style and setup used in the movies. Every old Disney movie was different from the other, and you'll notice this if you watch each in succession like I have. There are some exceptions, of course;
Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Cinderella are very similar to each other. However there are approximately 16 Disney "Classic" movies which I consider to be everything from
Snow White to Sleeping Beauty in the Disney canon, and only
THREE of them are in a similar style and tone from each other. Disney was founded upon the philosophy that change and twists to familiar stories was interesting and new, and to this day the only one that has remained even remotely accurate is probably Snow White at
best. Everyone else in the "Classic" era of Disney is very different from each other.
Disney wasn't even really founded on the idea of pushing musicals all over the place like in the Renaissance era of Disney, even though that is what people think of when they think of Disney.
Speaking of the Renaissance era - that, my friend, is when Disney started becoming similar to each other. I think you're confusing the Renaissance era with Classic Disney, probably due to some type of blind nostalgia fanboyism, but the
Renaissance era of Disney wasn't Disney in feel, or tone, or anything of that sort. Matter of fact it took a different approach and altered the classic tales even further with modernized concepts and characters and sometimes even destroying great classics (Hunchback of Notre Dame), and made all of the movies into these musical
epics. It worked, cause they were still good movies, but the "Disney feel" of them is severely overstated. There is nothing about these movies that are even remotely similar to what Walt Disney did back in the day, or the people he worked with. For this matter, Disney grew a more modernized image of what they do and what they're good at.
So if you ever want to complain about how Disney has "fallen" cause they've stopped following Walt Disney, you're approximately
62 years late. Don't get me started on how different the films in between both eras are.
Disney Duster wrote:And I did not instantly dislike the film because of the title I said that dampened my enjoyment and was one part of why I didn't like it and the humor was not the same it was way more modern, cutting, and cynical.
This is the same with any Disney movie in the Renaissance era, and a few in between and before it. Any complaint you have with
Tangled, applies to
The Little Mermaid also, and
Beauty and the Beast too. Mind you how I'm actually stating a fact rather than making up one? Neat, huh?
Disney Duster wrote:In the original The Little Mermaid she really did want to live on land with a human prince in addition to a soul, I read the book. Removing the talk about a soul was a Disney thing to do because Walt would do that for example he took out the religious stained-glass windows in Fantasia's last segment. But Tangled did un-Disney things.
Okay Disney Duster, I have a test for you. I'm convinced you don't really proof-read anything you type out for various reasons, but I won't delve into that. I have a test that I think you'll end up getting unexpected results from:
Read every post you made, as if it was another person on this board.
Go ahead and try it and then post the results, and you'll see why people are so bothered by what you're posting.
One day you're going to look back at your posts, and feel so awful you made them, that you're going to regress in a state where you start claiming you were "trolling all along." No, Disney Duster, I see through your guise already;
you're no troll, which is sad cause that makes things worse in the long run. But you're going to use this excuse anyway, one day, and I'll be there to remind you that you aren't a troll, just a man who can't form a proper opinion for himself. That's how all self-proclaimed trolls begin...and end. The time for you to accept your defeat is
now. You aren't a
true connoisseur, and you never will be with this attitude.
A company cannot be run by a dead man, especially since the world has changed a lot since he died. I'm pretty sure they still stick to his legacy anyway - entertainment for everyone.
)