Posted: Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:38 pm
I'm still confused. 

Here's an outrageous idea; why not wait until the film is actually made and you've seen it before making a snap decision over whether it has the mythical "Disney essence" and meets your standards?DisneyDuster wrote:But the way they are talking about doing it now is the un-Disney way of doing death, the Discworld way.
Maleficent had horns too. It's not the same thing, and for it not being the same thing, that is the difference between what is Disney and what is not.
True to you maybe, but not to the rest of us; it's an opinion, we all have them.DisneyDuster wrote:I simply said it feels un-Disney. That's a true statement because I feel it.
Again, what? So because you said it, it's true?DisneyDuster wrote:All of you do know what is or Disney comes from feelings that are hard to explain, capiche? I simply made a statement that is true, you can't explain it any more than that, thus I've explained all I could.
Disney Duster wrote:
I can't wait until Disney makes Twilight into animated movies. The vampires aren't evil, they're friendly, it's fine! I mean, Disney can do anything, make anything fit them, cause Disney has no essence or identity, right?
In that case, you must write more clearly so that people can understand what you're saying. Sometimes you just come across as condescending.DisneyDuster wrote:Next, it is a true that I felt it isn't Disney. I didn't say everyone felt this way, did I? The truth is that I felt it. That is a truth, not an opinion. You must read very carefully.
No, I personally want to see them do more original stories and I think Mort is that. I'm starting to agree with Goliath; if you don't like it, it's wrong. The film is being directed (reportedly) by Ron Clements and John Musker, the two men who adapted one of the world's saddest fairytales into one of Disney's most successful and popular animated features. For some reason, I trust their judgement of what makes a good Disney film a little more than I trust your's.DisneyDuster wrote:I'm asking you, what is the limit? Should Disney just do anything and everything, and not have an identity anymore? They should just do anything that's not R-rated? Even if it doesn't fit with what Disney's always been like, you just want to see them do it anyway or try to make it fit?
Since none of us, as majority, are clearly understand wtf you're trying to explain and tell us, it clearly seems you aren't explaining yourself clearly enough or legitimately. The example of how you explain yourself as I pointed out earlier is a proof of your way of trying to prove an argument that really isn't being send to us clearly enough. You're only speaking in clearly your own personal feelings as if you expect us to understand it easily like poof! disney magic.Disney Duster wrote:You see, since people are already not understanding what I wrote very well before, my complaint that people simply don't understand me even when I explain myself is legitimate.
how is death as a person or entity is "un-disney"? Death already have been use as an entity embodiment. Hades(and the three fates) and Chernabog as Enigmawing pointed out earlier. I dunno why you said Hades isn't considering he's you know he's... the...ruler of the dead....Disney Duster wrote:I already asked if sex and drugs could be Disneyfied, in the sense that Death could be Disneyfied. It means you can make either sex, drugs, or death be friendly and nice and not evil or a killer, like all of you said he is in the book, but it doesn't matter if you make death, sex, or drugs, look friendly and not bad or evil, because it's still sex, Death, and drugs, all un-Disney (Death as a person, not death as an occurence in the story).
Disney Duster wrote:Was the Horned King Death? He wasn't? Then that's still my point.
LOL WAT?!Disney Duster wrote:Maleficent had horns too. It's not the same thing, and for it not being the same thing, that is the difference between what is Disney and what is not.
I can't wait till Big One or Goliath read this.Disney Duster wrote:I simply said it feels un-Disney. That's a true statement because I feel it.
More like you're being lazy and don't want to explain or you don't really know how to explain it. Again you made a statement that is your opinion. Not truth.Disney Duster wrote:All of you do know what is or Disney comes from feelings that are hard to explain, capiche? I simply made a statement that is true, you can't explain it any more than that, thus I've explained all I could.
Be more specific as you're not clearly explaining yourself here. Define what is "Disney humor" and what's not. cause clearly none of this to us is making any sense considering you're not explaining yourself your reasoning all that well.Disney Duster wrote:Part of it is that death, a concept, is made into a character with personality that talks and something that ironically twists and parodies the concept. It is the Discworld style of irreverent humor and ideas, not Disney humor or ideas.
Like the same way they did it for Hunchback, Hercules, Jungle Book, Fox and the Hound etc??Disney Duster wrote:Since it feels so un-Disney, let's see just how Disney they can possibly make it.
In mort more like a guy. The one Darklordavaitor showed, is a from Neil Gaimen's Sandman comic series.DisneyJedi wrote:^As am I. I mean, what? Is Death supposed to be a girl, or a guy?!
More like a being trying to understand concept of humans as someone said before. He's more of a complex figure in exploring. He''s neither good nor evil. Just a entity that does his job.Disney Duster wrote:Death in Mort is a male, and people said he is friendly and not evil.
They already did Disneyfied sex. It's in Hunchback.Disney Duster wrote:I am saying that doesn't matter, that Death as a character is a very un-Disney subject, that even if they tried to Disneyfy it, should they really try to Disneyfy everything, including sex and drugs, and can they even really do that?
It's truth that you feel this way. No one is denying that. But it still a person's opinion.Disney Duster wrote:Next, it is a true that I felt it isn't Disney. I didn't say everyone felt this way, did I? The truth is that I felt it. That is a truth, not an opinion. You must read very carefully.
as long as story is good interesting and good concept. I'm more for it. What "fits disney" or not means zip to me. Disney's job is provide great entertainment. So i would expect great entertainment out of them regardless what the content may be.Disney Duster wrote:I'm asking you, what is the limit? Should Disney just do anything and everything, and not have an identity anymore? They should just do anything that's not R-rated?
Twilight sucks to begin with. If they adapted it. I wouldn't be cause they lost "Disney essence" or whatever, but they adapted a shitty novel series. thus the adaption is shitty as well.Disney Duster wrote:Even if it doesn't fit with what Disney's always been like, you just want to see them do it anyway or try to make it fit?
Sure why not.
Disney Duster wrote:I can't wait until Disney makes Twilight into animated movies. The vampires aren't evil, they're friendly, it's fine! I mean, Disney can do anything, make anything fit them, cause Disney has no essence or identity, right?
Did you miss my post stating that Disney has already depicted sex and drugs?Disney Duster wrote:should they really try to Disneyfy everything, including sex and drugs, and can they even really do that?
Death is a servant of Azrael, the 'Death of Universes'; an entity of enormously unthinkable scope and size, "the Ultimate Reality". Azrael is the Being from whom all lesser-Deaths are mere reflections or aspects.
Yes they are, just as they did with The Jungle Book, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Tangled, The Little Mermaid, Sleeping Beauty, Pocahontas, Hercules, Pinocchio, Robin Hood, etc. For shame Disney, for shame.DisneyDuster wrote:For all this, I stand by what I say. It's pretty un-Disney, yet they're going to try and make it Disney, because they just liked Mort so much and just want to put Disney animation on whatever they're personally interested in.
Death in Discworld doesn't kill people either. His job is to guide souls into the great beyond.DisneyDuster wrote:It doesn't matter how friendly death is. Death is a wacky Discworld type comedic take on death, he is not a mythical or folklore character like Hdes, who by the way did not represent death, he didn't kill people and take their souls, he just ruled the place where there souls were.
Wow, that's intersting! I never knew the Grim Reaper could be presented like that. I'm still not unsure about this movie, though.DisneyAnimation88 wrote:Disney Duster, this is the Death of Terry Pratchett's novels who may soon become a Disney character.
http://wiki.lspace.org/wiki/Death
"He is fond of kittens, Binky, Susan, Albert, curries and life."
"Death is however a caring individual and likes to keep an eye on things he does not necessarily need to, and he gets quite upset when people (mostly those freshly severed from their bodies) accuse him of killing them."
"His jurisdiction, so to speak, appears to be Discworld itself; he is not Death in the universal sense."
From those three quotes, I can envisage Death as a Disney character.
Because he's from a movie Disney Duster grew up on and has nostalgic feelings for. If Hercules came out today, he'd be complaining about it all the time.enigmawing wrote:Tell me again why Hades doesn't count?
The Lion King wasn't original, because it ripped off Kimba, as we all know. And wasn't Lady and the Tramp based on a booklet about a dog called 'Whistling Dan'? Anyway, talk about Disney-fied sex: why do you think Jock and/or Trusty were going to propose to Lady? (That reference was cut from the Dutch dub, by the way.) Because Tramp knocked her up during their night together.Disney Duster wrote:You can have original stories that aren't stuff like Mort. Disney did Lady and the Tramp and The Lion King and those were original stories that felt Disney.
Yes, you did. You just painted yourself in a corner with that remark.Disney Duster wrote:I did not say I didn't approve of death because of his design.
Fair enough point on Roger Rabbit which I agree shouldn't be an example to use, but you I like how you you couldn't argue against Hunchback's example I gave.Disney Duster wrote: First, since when does Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a film which melded Disney with Warner Brothers, which is un-Disney, fair game? It's not, because it's not a Disney animated classic which is what we are talking about.
He's smoking a Hookah.Disney Duster wrote:Next, the caterpillar could be smoking some Wonderland whatever,
The whole movie involved mind altering effect. Mushrooms, height perception, etc. You didn't think this movie was popular with druggies for a reason did you?Disney Duster wrote:You know what I meant when I was talking about drugs. The actual taking of illegal drugs of which we know their names and we see their mind-altering effects.
But what you asked earlier is "Show me where Disney Disney-fying Sex and drugs like they doing with death..." We gave you examples. You never specify any specific answers you were looking for and wanted to see.Disney Duster wrote:Next, how is making death a character called Death in anyway like those two examples you just gave? Why, it's not at all like those.
Just like Ron and Jon made a wacky comedic "christianize" take on the more serious mythological, and Greek myth -> Heracles. Not mention Mort will be directed by same directors.Disney Duster wrote:It doesn't matter how friendly death is. Death is a wacky Discworld type comedic take on death, he is not a mythical or folklore character like Hdes, who by the way did not represent death, he didn't kill people and take their souls, he just ruled the place where there souls were.
which make no sense to rest of us.Disney Duster wrote:For all this, I stand by what I say. It's pretty un-Disney,
Which most of us don't really see any problem with.Disney Duster wrote:yet they're going to try and make it Disney, because they just liked Mort so much and just want to put Disney animation on whatever they're personally interested in.
This thread isn't meant for it but I want downright clarify that the two have hardly anything in common at all. I've seen both. They are hardly anything alike.Goliath wrote: The Lion King wasn't original, because it ripped off Kimba, as we all know.
Actually, those Cullens are pretty friendly peeps.Disney Duster wrote:I can't wait until Disney makes Twilight into animated movies. The vampires aren't evil, they're friendly, it's fine! I mean, Disney can do anything, make anything fit them, cause Disney has no essence or identity, right?
Isnt somebody supposed to be shirtless?disneyboy20022 wrote:Disney Duster wrote:
I can't wait until Disney makes Twilight into animated movies. The vampires aren't evil, they're friendly, it's fine! I mean, Disney can do anything, make anything fit them, cause Disney has no essence or identity, right?
I know! I was trying to figure out who Jacob was, but it was hard to identify him, since they're all wearing shirts. I guess it's the beefy version of Eric?ajmrowland wrote:Isnt somebody supposed to be shirtless?