Wreck-It Ralph (formerly Reboot Ralph)

[Neal]

We love Disney as adults because we're a different breed of person. Same as with this music. That goes hand-in-hand Today's generation of Twilight/Transformers/Alvin & the Chipmunks loving tweens/teens would not 'get' or like this music.

[Kossage]

Well, I wasn't referring to classical musical - I was referring to the bubble-gummy music of the Andrews Sisters, The Chordettes, etc.

I have some very throwback (read:hippy) friends with eclectic tastes in music and open, receptive personalities but they often ask me to turn off "Mr. Sandman," "Lollipop" and other such saccharine songs.

20s through 40s pop is not classical.

I wholly agree classical music is timeless and has no cultural boundaries.

Indeed, popular music can't be classified as classical, but then again 'classical' is a very specific term even in orchestral music vocabulary so I was merely using it in a roundabout way to make a point. I should've worded it more carefully, I suppose. I was under the impression that you meant orchestral music and not just pop tunes, so thanks for clarifying your statement.

As for popular music from 40s and such, I understand it's not everyone's cup of tea, but I enjoy stuff from the Andrews Sisters etc. I've also enjoyed that Disney's composers have often emulated the music from that era as well as put a new spin on it; case in point, Randy Newman's music for The Princess and the Frog, which offered nice jazzy tunes fitting the film's period setting but with modern sensibilities, and Michael Giacchino's suitably retro music for the recent Goofy short How to Hook Up Your Home Theater.

Saccharine songs and such are definitely something that divide people. I know plenty of people who detest certain subgenres of popular music, but others enjoy listening to such. Many people often detest the positive, laid-back attitude of songs from the past, but others find enjoyment in them. People have different tastes, after all, but I think that with an open mind many people might end up liking such songs if given a chance.

What I find sad in today's environment in general is that people are often locking themselves in certain genres without daring (or bothering) to explore new grounds or at least giving them a chance. Depending on one's influences (parents, friends, school, TV, one's own curiosity) it's entirely possible that even some people from the Twilight etc. crowd would be willing to listen to music from the 1940s (for example) and perhaps even end up liking it.

In Finland kids generally learn a lot about old schlagers (certain genre of music) as well as orchestral classics. Some end up liking that stuff, others don't. The same is true of liking Disney as you said: there are many people who stop caring about animation after they grow up, but there are always some who stray from the masses and learn to look at things from a different perspective and enjoy things for what they're worth.

[Goliath]

Goliath, no, I just mean that as Robin Willaims got older he probably got dirtier as people do. And did Eric Goldberg say it was "very hard" to find clean material, or he was just looking for clean material? And remember, this is just what one man judged as "clean". And I already told you it's fine that he used adult language, as did Walt himself. But Walt and Willaims never did stuff like Sarah Silverman or George Carlin, that is where you can see the difference.

No, there is no difference. NO difference. AT ALL. You understand that? The FACTS don't support your opinion. The 'difference' you think you see between Willaims & Murphy on the one hand and Carlin & Silverman on the other hand is completely ARBITRARY and ARTIFICIAL. You have dreamed up a non-existing 'difference' to justify your hatred for everything Disney has done after you grew up and stopped being a kid.

Disney will never be Pixar. Otherwise they wouldn't still have seperate names. No matter how many times you or anyone else says that Disney is Pixar, it will never be true, for infinity. My post saying Disney will never be Pixar is the truth for infinity. I know very well that sounded very much like a kid, but I am at a Disney forum where Walt encouraged people to be like children, and I said what I wanted to.

Disney OWNS Pixar. That's a FACT. How hard is that to grasp? Yes, I agree they both make very different movies, but all of Pixar's films are being announced as 'Disney-Pixar'. I'm sorry you can't handle that fact. Walt did encourage us to be kids, but did he also say we should be childish?

[...] Lilo & Stitch misses some Disney essence in some areas. So I'm not against the whole thing if it was fixed. I was against the whole thing, now I'm not. I did indeed change my stance there, but you should be happy about that one. But as the film is, it's not fully fit to be Disney I say, not enough Disney essence, sorry. So there's the clarification.

That's not a clarification, that's an alternate stance you HAD to take to justify one of your other inexplicable stances in another thread. But stilll, Lilo & Stitch breathes 'Disney essence' from every scene in the movie.

But if you keep saying what I say is just from nostalgia for me instead of actually respectfully arguing my points, I will keep saying that everything you say is just from your bad past experiences, because basically your saying my thoughts just come from my nostalgic experiences. So if you wanna play ball, we will, and it will be fair game.

What do you want me to say? If you want to equate you playing my psycho-analyst based on posts on an internet forum to me pointing out patterns in your arguments... be my guest. Makes you even look sillier.

[Disney Duster]

Fine, then I will point out are facts: Walt never made a DAC that was a book's modern twisted spin on a fairy tale, and the Renaissance films still were fairy tales set in the original times and lands with the original backgrounds of the main characters, and that is not The Princess and the Frog or Tangled.

For the last time, Princess and the Frog was adapted more heavily from the novel "The Frog Princess" than the original fairytale. The novel also gives a modern twist to the fairytale, Disney basically changed the setting to New Orleans. I can't even be bothered to debate about Tangled anymore, as Goliath has pointed out, it is a quintessential Disney film. If it doesn't meet your standards, fine, but that doesn't make it "un-Disney" or something "Walt wouldn't want or do".

Yes...and I said: "Walt never made a DAC that was a book's modern twisted spin on a fairy tale", which was the thing against Princess and the Frog. And Tangled is almost a quintessential Disey film. And Lilo & Stitch is almost okay to be Disney. If you disagree with that, it's gonna be just my opinion vs. your opinion unfortunately because this is not the thread for this.

]Well, first of all, their movies have failed for like, how long now, so they really do seem to need advice.

They don't need it from anyone on this forum with no experience of actually making a Disney film. Say what you want but the simple fact is John Lasseter knows how to make good films and Disney are making good films right now. Like I said, they might not meet your standards but that doesn't make them bad films. If they can repeat the critical and commercial success of Tangled in upcoming films like Wreck-It Ralph and King of the Elves, Disney will be fine.

You're kind of going around what I'm talking about. Disney may make good films, but it's more important for them to make Disney-fitting films. Why? Because other companies make good films all the time, what is the difference between them and Disney? That some fit in with Disney is the difference. Would Walt want his films to succeed and keep his business afloat...if they were Rated R? That's an extreme example to get you to understand what I mean.

For Sleeping Beauty, Walt still chose and approved Eyvind Earle to make the film as artsy as he did. At least Walt still chose and approved it to be that way. He also chose the music to be from the classical ballet. So these Fantasia-like elements were Walt-approved. Something I didn't know was that Walt was more involved in 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book, but even then, was he very, very involved, or just more than Sleeping Beauty?

In terms of the character backgrounds, I will say this; when you look at the fairytales Walt made, probably with the exception of Sleeping Beauty, the princes are bland characters with very little characterisation or personality. You can't accuse characters like Flynn Rider or Naveen of lacking those things. In princess stories, the princes are plot vehicles that give the princess something to aspire to; that's fine for old fairytales but it doesn't translate well to film, the prince characters need something to endear them to audiences and entertain, not stand in the background and do very little as they did in Walt's films.

You pointed out Naveen. He's a prince, and he's great. I like him better than Flynn Rider, and he's actually really similar to Flynn Rider in that both want to just have fun instead of responsibility. Also, Prince Eric and Prince Adam (the Beast) are great princes, so Rapunzel could have had a great prince that helped the story.

Goliath, I just say you're wrong about everything you last said. : )

[DisneyAnimation88]

At least Walt still chose and approved it to be that way. He also chose the music to be from the classical ballet. So these Fantasia-like elements were Walt-approved. Something I didn't know was that Walt was more involved in 101 Dalmatians and Jungle Book, but even then, was he very, very involved, or just more than Sleeping Beauty?

He approved of Eyvind Earle; I'm not sure he approved of the $6 million cost of the film after it met Earle's artistic vision, an astronomical amount for an animated film in those days. Walt had very little involvemenn in the film because of Disneyland and by the time he saw the finished product, there was little he could do to change it before the release date. Legend has it that Walt wasn't overly impressed with the film and found it too slow. On 101 Dalmatians he was a lot more involved; the most recent DVD release has a documentary about his close correspondence with the novel's author Dodie Smith and he definitely took more of a role on the film that he did Sleeping Beauty. He was very involved in The Jungle Book after his falling out with Bill Peet over the film's story and Peet's departure from the studio.

so Rapunzel could have had a great prince that helped the story.

Well they didn't change the character on a whim; there was obivously why they felt the story worked better with Flynn and I personally believe it paid off.

Anyway on the other points I agree it's time we agree to disagree Let's let this thread get back to being about Wreck-It Ralph.

[Sotiris]

I found this on someone's Tumblr so I don't know if it's true.

Disney has announced that a teaser for Disney’s upcoming 2012 classic “Wreck-It Ralph” will be attached to “The Muppets” when it is released in November this year.

[ajmrowland]

Unsurprising, as that's the studio mentality these days.

Pixar, Disney, Warner have all been doing it.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I'm looking forward to seeing what this film and the characters will look like; I can remember seeing some early artwork from Joe Jump so it will be interesting to see how much the design of the film has changed in the years that the film became Wreck-It Ralph.

[Sotiris]

Jin Kim, character designer at WDAS, is working on Wreck-It Ralph.

Jin Kim's next movie will be "Reboot Ralph," a video game-inspired animation flick scheduled to be released in November 2012.

Source: http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+New ... 79331.html

[Sotiris]

Wreck-It Ralph is working its way through the production pipeline. There doesn't seem to be a lot of it in the lighting, texturing, final departments as yet, but a staffer who is working on Prep and Landing No. 2 says they'll start getting some of it soon. (Upstairs in the story department, there are still story revisions going on. There are always story tweaks.)

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... lding.html

[Mmmadelon]

From their facebook:

We're bringing Wreck-It Ralph stars Jack McBrayer and Sarah Silverman to the Disney D23 Expo next weekend. Are you ready to hear more about our 52nd animated feature?

[Neal]

Hope we see some stills or a trailer soon!

[DisneyAnimation88]

I hope we do get to find out some more about this film and finally see some of the artwork. Tangled will be a hard act to follow but I think that the concept for Wreck-It Ralph has a lot of promise and it's always good to see Disney try their hand at an original story.

[Prince Edward]

Disney's official Facebook-page:
http://www.facebook.com/WreckItRalph

[Goliath]

I hope we do get to find out some more about this film and finally see some of the artwork. Tangled will be a hard act to follow but I think that the concept for Wreck-It Ralph has a lot of promise and it's always good to see Disney try their hand at an original story.

You're right, Rapunzel was a big succes, and Wreak-It Ralph could be too, but here's the problem: Disney movies aren't the event they were back in the 1990's. Nowadays, to the bigger audience, they're just the next animation film among all the others. They don't create the buzz and the excitement anymore that the 1990 films did. The public goes to see them and soon, they become just as forgettable as all the other animated films. Don't you think so?

[PatrickvD]

I hope we do get to find out some more about this film and finally see some of the artwork. Tangled will be a hard act to follow but I think that the concept for Wreck-It Ralph has a lot of promise and it's always good to see Disney try their hand at an original story.

You're right, Rapunzel was a big succes, and Wreak-It Ralph could be too, but here's the problem: Disney movies aren't the event they were back in the 1990's. Nowadays, to the bigger audience, they're just the next animation film among all the others. They don't create the buzz and the excitement anymore that the 1990 films did. The public goes to see them and soon, they become just as forgettable as all the other animated films. Don't you think so?

well, the successful ones live on in the parks. While the competition's hits end up in the 2 dollar bin anyway...

[DisneyAnimation88]

They don't create the buzz and the excitement anymore that the 1990 films did. The public goes to see them and soon, they become just as forgettable as all the other animated films. Don't you think so?

I would agree with that. I don't think there will ever be a period like the Renaissance again where animated Disney films were breaking box-office records and were extraordinarily successful. Had Jeffrey Katzenberg stayed at Disney and DreamWorks never been founded then perhaps that would be different but I agree that the number of animated films made today by other studios has taken away from the feeling of Disney films being "events". But for me, films like The Princess of the Frog and Tangled are as good as the Renaissance films and Disney, along with Pixar, still make the best animated films.

[Goliath]

[...] and Disney, along with Pixar, still make the best animated films.

New Pixar-films still *are* considered as 'events'. In that way, Pixar has taken over Disney's place, I think.

[Disney's Divinity]

I think Disney'll need to have 3 to 4 hits in a row for the audience to trust them like they do Pixar.

I think, for the most part, audiences today don't think of brand names--they just like a commercial they see on TV. If the commercial doesn't entertain them, they don't see the movie. Pixar is the only name in animation that people take real notice of. I think that's part of the reason studios have been making so many sequels/re-makes. They can't guarantee their next film will be a hit, but they can bet on a previous success' sequel/re-make to attract audiences.

[nomad2010]

I hope we do get to find out some more about this film and finally see some of the artwork. Tangled will be a hard act to follow but I think that the concept for Wreck-It Ralph has a lot of promise and it's always good to see Disney try their hand at an original story.

You're right, Rapunzel was a big succes, and Wreak-It Ralph could be too, but here's the problem: Disney movies aren't the event they were back in the 1990's. Nowadays, to the bigger audience, they're just the next animation film among all the others. They don't create the buzz and the excitement anymore that the 1990 films did. The public goes to see them and soon, they become just as forgettable as all the other animated films. Don't you think so?

I agree. I think what made the 90's films SO incredibly popular though, was the fact that they were during that rare point in history where media found the right balance in catering to ALL age demographics. Look at 90's television. Full House. Family Matters. Etc. They were popular and appealed to all ages. Disney movies were the same. They were also taken seriously (in production) and not lightly. Now it seems that Disney is afraid to try appealing to all ages. Tangled was a step in the right direction, but it was a rather light-hearted, comical affair. Disney movies were taken seriously because they were serious. They didn't aim towards kids specifically or adults. They were genuinely good movies that anyone could enjoy whether it be a child, an oscar-loving movie critic, or an old man. I think that's what the Disney magic truly is. It's a rare balance of appeal, story, and heart. It's something hard to find these days. In fact, it's all but disappeared. Phineas and Ferb is the closest thing on television to it. And Tangled got close but took itself too lightly. I think Disney works best in fairy tales, fantasy, and escapism. Modern day things just don't suit them. Just my opinion.