DVDizzy Forum

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Bringing this thread back on-topic...

I was rather irked by Doug's review of Aladdin; I don't think he knew what he was babbling about, and as slave2moonlight said, I don't think he fully believed his own weak reasons against it.

As for Lion King, Pocahontas and Hunchback - I more-or-less agree with him on all of those. But the fact that he doesn't recognise films like Dumbo and Aladdin as masterpieces makes me value his opinion a lot less.

He doesn't have to agree with you on every movie.

disneyboy20022 wrote:Update from Doug Walker regarding lack of Disneycember, and the Nostalgia Critic reviews...

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/gbk7guWpfwI.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#gbk7guWpfwI"></embed>

link/video/image is not working.

Super Aurora wrote:

disneyboy20022 wrote:Update from Doug Walker regarding lack of Disneycember, and the Nostalgia Critic reviews...

<iframe src="http://blip.tv/gbk7guWpfwI.html?p=1" width="480" height="392" frameborder="0"></iframe><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://a.blip.tv/api.swf#gbk7guWpfwI"></embed>

link/video/image is not working.

He basically just says that everything will be a week late for a while because he got a computer virus.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... s/specials

A virus, huh? I guess that explains a lot.

Dream Huntress wrote:But you still didn't mention Tiana, or any other Disney princess before or after Ariel and Belle, you say that Ariel is the only one with drive when compared to Belle, but you don't compare her to any other princess outside her and Walt's princesses.

"Emotional drive" is what I said. That's a key difference. Tiana and Mulan (whom I have mentioned before, by the way) have a drive, but not an emotional one. And that's what makes Ariel unique in the Disney-canon. Sorry if you don't like her, but this is the way it is.

Dream Huntress wrote:Again, this falls into personal preference, I see why people prefer different princesses, but the way you're wording this is like it is a fact that only certain princesses have appeal, even though they all have different personalities that appeal to different people [...]

Er... that was the very first thing I acknowledged in the post you're quoting...

Dream Huntress wrote:That really doesn't excuse poor storytelling, and in any case "Aladdin" pulls the love at first time trope way better.

What poor storytelling? And how is 'Aladdin sees Jasmine and falls in love immediately' different from 'Ariel sees Eric and falls in love immediately'?

Dream Huntress wrote:Did you even read what I wrote after that? I'm guessing not, because it didn't suit your response, much like your previous comments.

Geez Louise, are you a drama-queen...!

qindarka wrote:He doesn't have to agree with you on every movie.

I'm not saying he should. But in this thread, we are discussing his Disneycember reviews (as the title suggests), and therefore, I often bring up my own opinion on the DACs reviewed. Your apparent irritation with me is unnecessary.

Disney's Divinity wrote:I've personally never understood Lazario's dislike for Beauty and the Beast either, but I'm not attached to it enough for it to bother me, I guess.

DisneyJedi wrote:Dude, how can you not like Beauty and the Beast?? It's one of Disney's best animated films ever!

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Even though you've probably outlined the reasons before...Lazario, why do you hate Beauty and the Beast? I don't think it's the best of the best, but its flaws are very few; the design is great, the characters are memorable and the songs are wonderful.

Yes, I have. At length. (And I want to say that, at the time in which I did, Goliath was very critical of me for doing so. Nice to see him performing such a sharp 180.)

So, in trying to find a new way to launch into this... I saw slave2moonlight say BatB is one of Disney's few movies where we slowly build into Belle and Beast's relationship. But is there any point where we care about these 2 getting together? If Belle is any kind of effective protagonist, we have to follow her desire order meets the film's delivery of it. She wants out of the shackles of her provincial life and to give it to her, the movie makes her someone else's slave. She asked for it, as far as the movie's concerned. Now she's a prisoner. Of her love for her father. Under the thumb of a beast... So, she's established as a free-thinking, independent woman just so she can not only end up answering to a man in a domestic situation she didn't ask to be in, but the reason she's there in the first place is because she hasn't left home yet. Damn did Maurice luck out on that one or what! She gets undue credit for extreme loyalty meanwhile, everyone else watching is ignoring the fact that the Beast doesn't even seem to have a rock solid reason to be taking prisoners like this. "Well, I- I- I- I can't have people sitting on my chair for 45 seconds without spending a night in the tower in exchange for my hospitality!" Sorry, this is what the movie gave us.

Nobody else seems to have stopped to consider how unbelievably disturbing this set-up is. Beast is a dick and was a dick when he had the spell placed on him, so he must find a way to keep the first woman who comes his way prisoner at any basic cost. So, let's have her think her whole life is over- it'll go over better than it sounds. Why? Oh, because the freaking movie turns right around and shows us: Beast's not that bad. He just has a bad temper. Okay- WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?! Belle is partially destroyed for cheap drama stakes and she's crying her eyes out while Lumiere is doing that "you're smooth, master" elbow nudge, advising him on how to win her over. Is it too much to ask for this movie to sync up the character's pages?!?!? Belle is in a whole other state and NOBODY visible is doing an accurate reading of what she's meant to be going through. Not even the filmmakers. Even the music is trying to lighten the mood, telling dumb people that it's time to SNAP out of Belle's emotional trauma and probably a good deal of personal identity death. Are we literally supposed to completely forget about her DEEP sadness and focus on Beast's next move just because that eventual romance will be the most important thing? Oh, wait... No, it's okay; I get it. Because the stupid movie has Belle snap out of her own incredible sadness to go castle exploring... I shouldn't take it too seriously that 5 minutes before, her heart was breaking. Everyone else followed the movie no matter what stupid thing it threw at us- I should too.

I could go on, but I don't need to. Every other scene is an idiotic and clueless replay of this basic dynamic without the benefit of remembering how they got themselves there in the first place. Belle is bland anyway. So, even if the movie had an actual, genuine story and romance as the basis for its' existence rather than cheap manipulation, I wouldn't care about her plight. There is no reason in the world for us to care about Beast. He started out the story as a jerk who got supernatural payback for being a jerk and turned into a jerk with fangs and claws as a result. The movie does all this "OH NO!" music cues and heavy drama just because he has a royal temper tantrum... Great to know the movie doesn't judge him for being such a loser. But I do. Just because he fights off a few wolves and lets Gaston knock him around- we should like him? That's as thick-headed as the character is. Also, the songs and music are unbelievably overrated and Paige O'Hara is an awful singer. Oh, and / well, "Gaston" has some amazing lyrics but the movie even screws this up by putting SO MANY sound effects over the vocals so you can't even tell what they're singing if you don't already know / don't have the subtitles / Sing Along captions on. The animation isn't that stunning unless you already like the boring characters (Lumiere is a jerk and given the nature of the film- anyone who isn't disappears into the background).

Truly, except for the dirty lyrics in "Gaston"... and a little color during the "Be Our Guest" sequence (an idea copied from The Great Mouse Detective), there is nothing remotely interesting or satisfying about the movie whatsoever. Frankly: what the hell did so many people like about it? I think they're crazy.

Goliath wrote:"Emotional drive" is what I said. That's a key difference. Tiana and Mulan (whom I have mentioned before, by the way) have a drive, but not an emotional one. And that's what makes Ariel unique in the Disney-canon.

But both Mulan and Tiana have emotional drives. Tiana's drive to open her own restaurant is inextricably linked with the ideals and values her father taught her, her love of her father and her desire to make his dream come true. It's also connected to her wish to prove herself in a racist and classist society.

And how's Mulan's drive not emotional since she risked her own life to save her father? Not to mention her desire to break free from the oppression of the patriarchal society she lived in and discover herself?

How can you not consider all of these an "emotional drive"?

Emotional...hormonal... If you watch Nostalgia Chick's review of TLM, she has an intense hatred for Ariel and her actions in the movie. I think she said it best when she says that Ariel was a total fangirl. They do get the rebellious teen scenario down flat with this one.

As far as Belle's drive goes, I don't think she really had one. She just a daydreamer who wanted her life to be a little more exciting. Even the way they approach her dream in the film seemed pretty "meh".

Perhaps Tiana's drive isn't so emotional because it seems very American/conservative. She was less of a dreamer and more of a goal maker.

But Mulan however is a little different. I don't think she wanted to so much break free from from the patriarchal life so much as find acceptance in it. For example, Mulan wasn't complaining about having to see the matchmaker. She wanted to go because she wanted to make her family happy by doing what was expected of her society. I don't think Mulan really minded it. The problem was her personality quirks, and somewhat clumsy behavior that made it a struggle for her to make her family proud and her worst fear was giving them a bad name. I'm sure that taking her father's place wasn't an easy decision but I feel a part of the motivation for doing so was to make her father proud of her (given that this is a society that clearly favors men over women, can you blame her?)

Sotiris wrote:How can you not consider all of these an "emotional drive"?

Maybe I should have worded my thoughts better. What I meant was that Ariel is the only one who follows her own emotions to achieve her own emotial goals and satisfy her own desires. She's not doing something for somebody else, like Mulan and she's not chasing after a material dream, like Tiana (I was never convinced about the link with her father). Some would call her 'selfish' for that, but not me. But I have worded this far better in the 'TLM Discussion' thread...

In case anyone doesn't know...his reviews for Mulan, Tarzan, Fantasia 2000 and Emperor's New Groove have been put up.

Thanks for the reminder. Hmm, good Tarzan review. I don't really "get" why some people hate the Phill Collins songs so much, but then, I know some people LOVE them. I guess it's just one of those things. I don't really think his idea that it should have been a musical is a good one for this subject, but I do kinda like his idea that the leopard should have been the main villain a la Shere Khan (long as it wasn't done too similarly, which might be tricky). Overall, I think it's better than his final word seemed to make it sound. He really wanted it to focus much more on Tarzan's inner struggle, but I think that was handled well, and everything was nicely balanced: the romance, the action, etc... He's right that Clayton wasn't a well-developed villain (well-played though), but I thought it was a bit disappointing that he didn't mention his great death scene. Maybe I'm the only one who thought it was really cool, I don't know.

Fantasia 2000 was another good assessment. Maybe I'm the only one who liked the celebrity guests, ha. Granted, I haven't seen it in a while, and maybe the jokes WERE pretty lame. I think they add a little something for the audience that makes it less "stuffy", and I think this film in general IS a bit less formal, which I kinda like. He made a good point (I was really expecting) about how they never get away from trying to have a narrative. He's right and all, but again, I'm a guy who is not big on abstract and appreciates that a bit more. I also always enjoyed the flamingo bit, ha, if I remember correctly. If I was going to complain about anything in this film, off the top of my head, I'd say I wish they hadn't included the Sorceror's Apprentice. Don't get me wrong, I love it, but they already had the Donald Duck bit for this one. What happens if they do Fantasia 3000? They include a Goofy story, and before long, this is a Fab Five movie. Probably would be best if it was one Fab Five segment per film, ha.

I don't know what to say about someone who doesn't like Emperor's New Groove, ha. Only thing I didn't ever really like about the film was the whole use of the word "groove". I just don't know of anyone who talks about their "groove". It always seemed weird to me. It also took me a long time to like his "theme song" from the opening. I seem to like it now though. But, I guess I can see how someone might feel the way he does, but I also see that he has the common problem of wanting Disney to only do (or NOT do) a certain "type" of film. What I mean is, well, they don't all have to be epics. Is he forgetting stuff like Ichabod and Mr. Toad or Sword in the Stone? Oh, I don't remember if he liked those or not though. Anyway, the quality was here, and this is some of the funniest I think I've seen Disney be. I mean, they can really fall flat on the humor, and that is always so upsetting for me. He does make a great point (not that everyone doesn't know this) that Yzma and Kronk are the best part (though I find Kuzco pretty hilarious too). Man, I wonder what he would say about Home on the Range? Ha.

Actually, I wonder, are we getting any more DisneyCember? Or was that it. Seems a shame if he's not going to finish up the 2D stuff at least. He's come so far. What else is there... Atlantis, Treasure Planet, Lilo and Stitch, Brother Bear, Home on the Range, Princess and the Frog, Winnie the Pooh,... am I forgetting anything? I guess he's skipping stuff like Tigger Movie and DuckTales the Movie (I forget, did he do A Goofy Movie?). Still, he has a lot left. I wonder where he'll stop or if he has already.

New ones up on blip:
http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... et-5865118

I've only watched the Treasure Planet one so far. Kinda sucks, because he has this big issue throughout it just because he doesn't like the style of combining the book's time period style with the sci-fi stuff... And he also complains a lot that he wanted to see a Disney Treasure Island that was just straightforward. Doesn't he know there was a live-action one? And it was Disney's first entirely live-action film? Anyways, he points out a lot of the good points, and he's right about them doing too much of that stereotype "cool" stuff with Hawkins, but I think his issue with the setting/style is just a personal issue and not a flaw with the film, as he makes it out to be.

Amazing that he likes Atlantis, considering some of the stuff he doesn't like. In my opinion, Atlantis is the worst of the Disney traditionally animated stuff. And I get what he's saying about Lilo and Stitch, but I really don't think that keeping it just a realistic story about a girl struggling to raise her sister would have made a "better" film, just a very different one.

To answer your question S2M the following is left:

- Brother Bear
- Home on the Range
- Chicken Little
- Bolt
- Princess and the Frog
- Tangled
- Winnie the Pooh


So it's likely it might end at Tangled depending on if he's able to get a copy of Winnie the Pooh? Otherwise it will probably be another set of 3 and a set of 4.

I think he's only sticking with the Canon films (minus Dinosaur so far) so I doubt he's going to touch on Ducktales and Goofy Movie. Of course there is the chance he will review them fully at a later date as N-Critic since they are in the 90's range that he usually covers.

I swear I saw him talking about A Goofy Movie somewhere. Maybe it was on the "Movies I'll never review" video, or something... I don't know.

Anyways, yeah, I don't know why, but I just got the feeling he wouldn't be doing any of the CGI stuff. Though, Tangled really feels like one of the Disney animated features, so in that case it'll be weird if he skips it...

He said he was only doing the canon 2D films (with a few exceptions, i.e. Enchanted and Tangled). So no Ducktales or A Goofy Movie. slave2moonlight I think he did say the he wasn't going to review A Goofy Movie on the grounds that he didn't really have a problem with it or something like that.

And Disneycember comes to an end:

Brother Bear:
http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... ar-5868481

Home on the Range:
http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... ge-5868484

Enchanted:
http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... ed-5868505

The Princess and the Frog:
http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... og-5868523

Tangled:
http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... ed-5868545

Winnie the Pooh:
http://blip.tv/nostalgiacritic/disneyce ... oh-5868564



He didn't like Home on the Range, shocking.

Regarding Brother Bear, I'm starting to think his dislake of Phil Collins' music might damp a little his appreciation of the movie, but I do agree that having "No Way Out" over the dialogue when Kenai is telling Koda he killed his mother was probably the wrong way to play that scene.

About The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, I think the opposite, I think they tried to force too much the whole Disney feel on The Princess and the Frog, while on Tangled it felt more organic, but I agree that outside a couple of songs, the music is not memorable in either film.

Hmm, interesting. I actually like Brother Bear more than he did. I don't really have too much of an issue with "modern talk" from the animals since it's not harder to buy for me than them talking at all, even though I guess we only hear them talk because it is being "translated" for us, but in that respect, some modern talk makes more sense, in a way... Unless you just view it as the translation being for Kenai, which I guess it was. But, then again, we're still hearing it in English. I don't know if I'm making any sense, but my point is, it's not like we're hearing bear noises or actual tribal language, so there is a translation here happening for us, and I guess it could extend to other forms of modern talk, which is probably why this doesn't really bother me. The only exception is when they do say things that refer to stuff from another time period altogether, ha. Which is okay to me when Genie does it, as I assume he has some magical, infinite knowledge. Anyway, point is, that doesn't bother me, and as for the cub being annoying, I actually find him more on the cute side. The annoying ones, to me, are the bratty ones like Simba and Nala when they're cubs, ha.

And, I'm not just complimenting Phil Collins because his daughter is a goddess (though they overemphasized her eyebrows in that silly, upcoming Snow White movie, for some reason), but I really thought his music was one of the very best things about Tarzan (which I loved in general). However, I'll agree with Cinemasnob that I didn't feel it was used well in Brother Bear. Not that it wasn't good at times. I really need to rewatch it again to be more specific, but I do remember it being out of place at time, feeling unnecessary and TOO MUCH. Like I said, I like this movie, and I don't think it's perfect but I think it's pretty good, maybe a little better than Doug thinks it is. Then again, I don't think I was blown away by any of it, as he was. In fact, the FIRST time I saw it, I liked it less than I do now.

"Even the animation style isn't for 'adults'," now there's a statement I have a problem with. I still don't get the all-out hate for Home on the Range. Doug clearly feels it is for little kids and even states that it is only bad by Disney standard, because he continues to express that he expects these epic type films from Disney EVERY TIME. I think that's a bit unfair. As long as something is fun and enjoyable, why can't they just make a light comedy sometime? Now, I understand a great many people don't find this fun and enjoyable, but I'm saying I don't think it's fair to dislike it because it is just a silly comedy. "Home on the Range" reminds me of a lot of Disney's fun, one-shot short cartoons from Walt's Day, that's why I like it. I know a lot of folks hated it because this was supposedly going to be the last 2D Disney cartoon ever. Of course, that proved untrue. I get that a lot of people don't find it entertaining, and at least that is a fair opinion. I admit that I haven't seen it in a long time (if I wasn't out of town, I'd put it on right now), but I remember enjoying it when I initially saw it. I know I'm against popular opinion on this one, however, I do feel it is generally judged to harshly. Unless you just don't find any of the jokes funny, I don't think there's much to complain about here, as it was just trying to be a silly comedy, and it should be okay for Disney to do something like that now and then. Granted, it would probably be better if they just did that with short cartoons, but shorts are unusual these days. Or, they were unusual for a long time, and hand drawn ones still are.

Wow, I think he was a little hard on "Enchanted". I mean, it's not that he makes incorrect statements, it's just that I think he makes a bigger deal out of them than they are, in regards to them detracting from the film, I mean. I don't think the average person would have a problem with a lot of the things that bother him, ha.

Okay, again with the making a big deal out of a small thing. I really don't know anyone who thinks Princess and the Frog was overly complicated. Granted, it's not as simple as other Disney fairy tales, but I never had a problem following it, and I don't know anyone who has. Maybe I need to ask a kid though, I don't know. It seems a lot of people were underwhelmed by the music in this one though, but it's funny, I really love the music in it and so do some other people I know. I wish he had mentioned, incidentally, how Naveen is probably the most enjoyable and lively prince Disney has ever done. And, I don't know if it might be true that hand-drawn animation hurt the film's take, but man, that's sad if it's true. Everyone I ever talk to seems to consider anything hand-drawn as a breath of fresh air, but then I mostly am talking to fellow long-time Disney fans online, ha. Maybe it's true that the general public DOES prefer computer animation. God, I'm sick to death of it, and that's not to say I don't like it. I LOVE PIXAR...

Okay, not that he complained much about Tangled, but I gotta say, the only complaint he made that I can somewhat agree with was that the musical numbers were a bit awkward. It's not that I didn't like the songs or anything, but, I really had to get used to some of them and to the ways they played out. For example, Mother Knows Best is a great song, but all of a sudden, when that song first comes on and the way it is staged and all, all of a sudden I feel like I'm watching a Broadway number being performed on stage. And yet, it's just that part, and it's awkward. In other films, like Beauty and the Beast, yeah, the performances had a stage musical quality, but not to the extent of the Mother Knows Best performance in Tangled. I really had to get used to it. But, the voices in this film never bothered me. Also, I'm baffled at how any straight male can talk about Tangled and not even mention once how GORGEOUS Rapunzel is, ha. Okay, I know people have varying tastes, but, my god, she is perfection. I'm even getting used to her brunette version,... but, even though some girls do look better brunette, in Rapunzel's case, I think she looks better with the long, blonde hair. So, I wish they hadn't gone the route of cutting it short and having it change color, which really wasn't necessary (and complicates things like merchandise and meet 'n' greet characters in the parks, ha, not that you should let those things mess with your film, but like I said, it wasn't REALLY necessary to cut her hair THAT short or change the color, which also disconnected me with the character initially, the same way people are a bit put off in the end of Beauty and the Beast, when Beast looks like a completely different character).

I pretty much agree totally with his Pooh review, even about the title, ha, except Christopher Robin's eyes don't bother me and I overall do like the movie more than he does (he says it's good but not "great"; I think it could have been better, but I still think it's great). I would only add that Ferguson's voice as Owl was, I don't know, a bit too high and young sounding to me, even if he isn't that young, ha. He was great though. I mean, he really seemed to love being Owl, just a very different Owl than I'm used to. I also would say that, if I was going to nit-pick myself, I think they did a little TOO much of the fourth wall jokes with the book text and all. I like that they did that, but I seem to recall them overdoing it a bit in this one. I think I'll watch it today sometime, as it is one I brought with me to my mom's house, ha.

Well, I wish I'd taken the time to comment on all these reviews like this, even if no one else reads my comments, ha. Anyways, that was a fun month, and I appreciate Doug doing this, even though I think all these films deserve more thorough reviews than something so rushed. And, I know he obviously didn't have time, but I wish he had just included all the animation/2D mix films too, because it would have been interesting to see his reviews of Pete's Dragon and Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

To me the eyes on Christopher Robin make sense seeing as he is human and not a stuffed animal lie Pooh and the gang. I'm not sure if Doug was aware of that.