DVDizzy Forum

I'd rather see them make a Tinkerbell movie with a whole bunch of new fairy characters than more stuff that has II, III or Returns behind the title. It would mean a whole bunch of new characters designs anyway. The DTV animation unit is simply too talented to continue rehashing characters and story lines. It's better than Cinderella III I guess.... do we really wanna see Cinderella travelling back in time? I know I don't..

Disney-Fan wrote:Since that would be a first, and it would be a creative and original choice for an animated film. And if dialouge is a must (I admit, doing a film with few words is complicated), then why not have some creatures like in Dumbo that express the emotions of the main character/s?

I agree with you on this one completely. It would be wonderful if the Disney Studios would even try to do something creative and original for a change - that's what (Walt) Disney was famous for.

I think the comparison to animal characters is a bit weak. A really important aspect of Tinkerbell's character in the Peter Pan film is that she is mute, and only communicating in pantomime is what makes her interesting and original. It they do a film where she talks, they're creating a completely different character.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:It may be creative and original, but Disney has done a lot "creative" and "original" stuff of recent, but people couldn't find it, instead, they found it in "Shrek" and "Finding Nemo". Examples: Treasure Planet was knocked because it was "too different" to be a Disney film, yet it was very creative by trying to take a classic story and adding a twist to it, much more originality than any other film recently I can think of.

Actually, only the fans knocked it for being too different (with myself being one of them, I admit. I have come to love it though ). Critics were actually impressed by the attempt at giving the classic story a sci-fi twist. The problems they had I believe were with other story issues. And yes, despite what you may think about the movie, Shrek IS an original concept. Just check out any other movie after it [non-Pixar, Chicken Little included]. They all attempted to immitate the feel of Shrek with funny pop-culture references and laugh-a-minute one-liners and jokes.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Have you ever considered Disney has tried to make a movie about non-talking pixies, but found out there was no way for it to work without letting the kids get bored? I mean even if someone like Peter Pan narrated it, it still wouldn't improve it. As AFA said, nobody needed to narrate what the dogs said in "Lady and the Tramp" so why does it need to here?

You know, that's about as fair as me asking you if you know that Disney tried to make the movie without dialouge and it, in fact, didn't work. You don't know, I don't know, but that should never prevent me from criticising. Just because there's the slightest chance they did check out the option, it doesn't mean I should shut up about it. Also, in Lady and the Tramp we are supposed to see things from a dog's perspective. The humans are the strangers, and the one we supposedly don't understand. I don't recall "Peter Pan" or the character of Tinkerbell to ever be portrayed from a fairy's point-of-view.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:It's like no matter what, "Disney is evil". Even if Disney does what the crowd wants them to, THEY STILL get knocked and knocked again.

If you can honestly claim that I am one of those blame-Disney-for-anything-and-everything critics, then I'll just put this discussion to rest right here.

Timon/Pumbaa fan wrote:Now, I actually don't have much of an interest in this movie, or this franchise, but I don't see a problem with giving Tinkerbell a voice. You know, countless other characters(even some not in the Disney-canon) have had MUCH worse "travesties" to them than that.

That's beside the point. I'm not talking about other characters. I can only critic one problem at a time. Maybe it will turn out for the best, yes. I will never rule out such an option before seeing it, but as someone here said; They're taking an established trait of the character and changing it, thus giving us a different character all together. At least that's how it feels right now.

Damn those double posts!

Disney-Fan wrote:I don't recall "Peter Pan" or the character of Tinkerbell to ever be portrayed from a fairy's point-of-view.

HERE'S YOUR CHANCE!!!

I'd heard that the original plot for the Tinker Bell movie involved establishing Tink as the Princess of the Fair Folk from Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Chronicles (and Disney's The Black Caudron), so anything that involves that idea being scratched is a step in the right direction...

<img src="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/t-v/Tinkerbell 01.jpg">

<img src="http://www.ultimatedisney.com/images/t-v/Tinkerbell 03.jpg">

I don't have too much to say about the whole fiasco (hey, at least they remembered that "Tinker Bell" is two words, not one!) but I do like Brittany Murphy's dress in the publicity pictures quite a bit. And the fairy costumes.

I like the "Tinker Bell" logo and also the fact that this is the title of the movie. Anyone remind me, is it a 2-D or a 3-D cartoon?

I don't like that they gave Tinker Bell a voice, or that Brittany Murphy was cast as her (I hate her voice), but, hey, at least the role wasn't given to Dakota Fanning...

Aladdin from Agrabah wrote:Anyone remind me, is it a 2-D or a 3-D cartoon?

I'm pretty sure that it's 3-D

I remember reading this news before. I don't know where I stand now after reading all these arguments. Who knew Disney fans could be such ardent debators!

Anyhow, it's just interesting to see that Brittany Murphy started on the Disney Channel with the Torkelsons last season and is now Tinker Bell's voice. Though given the age of the actress...does this mean that the Fairies are all teenagers or young adults? They're certainly not children and they're certainly not adults. Hmmmmmmmm...it would be cool to see the Blue Fairy, Fairy Godmother, Flora, Fauna, and Merryweather as guest stars.

Thanks for posting those pictures Luke - it's great that such a formal announcement was made with gorgeous costumes.

I am anxiously looking forward to this movie.

Awwwww man! I just read the front page.

Tinker Bell and the Ring of Belief? Come on! I liked it much better when it was simply Tinker Bell. The new title makes it sound like an episode of a cheesy Saturday Morning cartoon.

Hi guys, i understand all this fuss about the Tink movie and about her having a voice and all that, but has any of you read the book "Fairy Dust & the Quest for the Egg"?

(as ashamed as I am) I'm 26 and bought the book out of total curiosity from the Disney store here in London and read it. Not only read it, I couldn't put it down! The illustrations are simply breathtaking in beautiful water color, and the story is very engaging and original. Man, as an illustrator and animator I was begging for it to be made into a movie -it was that good! And I am very against sequels and the milking of characters and movies.

We discover that the story happens after the events of Wendy's visit to NeverLand. Tink is living with her own kind, and that's why they all talk together. They have a queen, each fairy has her own unique ability or talent, and there's also Mother Dove who's kind of a kind spirit whose survival depends on the fairies and the fairies survival depends on her.

I loved how the story created a whole myth and back story for the fairies, in an odd way it reminded me of Bionicle! you have creatures with special talents and they feed off nature and gain life from her and give it back to her. Mother Dove's feathers (after molting) becomes fairy dust which is essential for fairies to survive, the egg she nests on it sort of their universe, it holds balance and order, very borrowed from universal mythology (especially Japanese where the universe supposedly came from an egg) - but all in good taste.

All in all, it's one amazing story that truly breathed fresh and new life into TinkerBell and the fairies, all the characters are lovable and you actually care for them, this might be a slight spoiler but even one of the major characters sacrifices something very dear and essential to her life in the course of the book (which was shocking in a book meant for little girls- but added such a dramatic twist to the story, very unexpected!)

I for one, having read this amazing story, is very very very excited about this project. If the people in Disney were gracious and adventurous enough to commission such a book, and use it as the first thing everybody will see from their forthcoming Faeries franchise, it means that they are truely taking a unique and different approach with the Faeries, and I think that the movie will not disappoint at all, on the contrary I'm sure it will surprise so many - if (and that's the major IF) they continue down this very adventurous and unique path that's not always full of happy cheesy Barbie-like stories with shallow morals, and opt for the engaging, creative and highly imaginative and entertaining world they created with this book.

I sure hope that Gail Carson Levine -the writer of this book- is involved somehow in the movie.

I also hope that the 3D animation will be so superb that the true focus will be on the movie & story and not on how bad it looks (again, like the awful Barbie movies)....enough said!

Hey, I know and understand how mad you guys are about giving Tinker Bell a voice, but I thihnk its for the best. I mean, this is probably going to be exactly like Brother Bear. In that movie, none of the humans understood the animals, and yet when Kenai was turned into a bear, all the animals spoke english for us to understand, and when ever Denahi was around Kenai, we saw Kenai speak "bear" again. I think the Tinker Bell Movie will be like this, in that Tink (and other pixies for that matter) will speak English around us for the sake of the audience, and in chimes/bells around any humans (Examples: Hook, Peter, Mr. Smee, etc.)

So, I think that its for the best that they give Tink a voice...I mean, you guys wouldn't REALLY want a movie where the fairies just speak in chimes through out the WHOLE movie, and you have to read subtitles for the whole thing, would you? My answer:

Oh, and I also have to say, that i'm REALLY dissapointed that this film is going to be in 3D...I thought for sure that the studio was going to use 2D animation....

-BB

brotherbear wrote:I think the Tinker Bell Movie will be like this, in that Tink (and other pixies for that matter) will speak English around us for the sake of the audience, and in chimes/bells around any humans (Examples: Hook, Peter, Mr. Smee, etc.)

That is so not the point. One of the reasons I like Tinkerbell as a character as much as I do is that her emotions and thoughts are expressed in pantomime. A talking Tinkerbell will be a different character.

brotherbear wrote:So, I think that its for the best that they give Tink a voice...I mean, you guys wouldn't REALLY want a movie where the fairies just speak in chimes through out the WHOLE movie, and you have to read subtitles for the whole thing, would you?

Yes I would. It would be fun, original, and interesting. You wouldn't probably even need subtitles. You don't need them for Dumbo, you don't need them for Fantasia, and many other films, such as Bambi, have a lot of scenes where there's no dialogue yet we can understand what the characters are feeling and thinking. Don't underestimate the intelligent level of the audience and the talents of animators as actors. It's bad enough that Disney does.

It's hard to tell, but in this case, I don't think Disney are "dumbing down". The other Disney Fairy merchandise has had positive reviews (including one on this thread) and the Tinker Bell movie is to be the first in a trilogy, which by all accounts will be quite epic in scope. I'm pretty sure each entry is already planned out.

I think it would be best if we wait and see what Disney has got in mind before complaining too much. After all, if UltimateDisney was about in the 80's, can you imagine the uproar on these boards when the Talespin news was first known. "They want to do what to Baloo? And Shere Khan is a businessman.... in a suit? Walt must be rolling in his grave".

Yes, the link I have provided below concentrates on the money, rather than the artistic value, but I get the impression this will be a Lord of the Rings type trilogy, only for the younger viewer (but aiming at younger viewers does not always equate to dumbing down).

https://licensing.disney.com/Login/disp ... ey_fairies

Disney Licencing wrote:Empowers girls to fly, discover, and believe

OK, Disney. I hope you have damn good lawyers if you have that as a tag-line. Think of all the messy accidents waiting to happen

2099net wrote:I think it would be best if we wait and see what Disney has got in mind before complaining too much. After all, if UltimateDisney was about in the 80's, can you imagine the uproar on these boards when the Talespin news was first known. "They want to do what to Baloo? And Shere Khan is a businessman.... in a suit? Walt must be rolling in his grave".

Yes, I think Netty has hit the nail square on the head here. Aside from the general wisdom of waiting to see what happens (something very few people do in the rush to get out an opinion on the Internet) part of every good story is the ability to reinterpret and reimagine every few years. Hook, the new live-action Peter Pan and Finding Neverland (not to mention the Disney Peter Pan) are all variations on an original story.

I can't think of a more perfect example of the ones that 2099 has provided. The reinterpretation of classic characters gave birth to them for a new generation, to the point that anybody of a certain age now thinks of Baloo and Chip and Dale in their TV variants rather than their original versions. Let's face it - Chip 'n' Dale were pretty much two dimensional without a purpose beyond stealing nuts. Scrooge McDuck was a cranky old bugger only interested in money. In DuckTales, this ruthlessness is downplayed and he is simply the loveable (but still greedy) uncle of Donald's nephews. Did this "ruin" the character? Hell, no - it endeared him to countless millions.

For all we know, the "Voice of Tink" could be an internal monologue/voiceover! It could be the result of a one-off accident. We simply don't know what the story is. Until we do, I anticipate this new development.

Tk2 wrote:Hi guys, i understand all this fuss about the Tink movie and about her having a voice and all that, but has any of you read the book "Fairy Dust & the Quest for the Egg"?

Oh yes, I mentioned the book earlier in this thread, and that's why I have hopes for this movie.

I must say I also agree with Netty and Loomis here. . . in fact, there were actually people actively complaining about "recycling" classic characters for the Disney Afternoon back in the day, yet today they're widely accepted with fond memories. It depends on what your point of view is from the very beginning.

I really hope this is the start of something wonderful and new for not only the current fans of Tink, but potential ones that know little of her outside of all the merchandise.