DVDizzy Forum

Neal wrote:This is an unnecessary topic but I appreciate you trying to salvage the other topic from succumbing to war. How many people actually argue that it's not a 'real' Disney animated film?

So far, I count one. And that one person's opinions are really slipping on the credibility scale around here, not just because that person is fighting with me do I say that, either - many other forum members here would agree.

Anyways, yes, it is - it contains all the classic Disney elements. Is Stitch more wild than other Disney characters? Sure. But being different is also a core element of Disney character design.

That's all I will say on the subject. Starting this thread is asking for a war I have no interest to take part in.

Hear, Hear

Escapay wrote:It has heart.

It has drama.

It has comedy.

It has richly-developed characters.

It has amazing animation.

It has wonderful character design.

It has a smashin' score.

It has a well-written story of redemption and acceptance.

It has villains who are not one-note, one-sided, or one-anything (except maybe one-eyed).

It has love.

It has lots of love, actually.

It has family.

It has family acting like family.

It is a damn fine film, regardless of the Disney name.

albert

As always, the only correct answer here

I agree with all the above and add to that the fact that is was highly succesfull and even spawned two sequels and two series (jap-anime also)

It is by far one of the better efforts produced in the last ten years
and in my humble opinion it is way up there with the disney golden age

Siren wrote:Apparently since it had a sci-fi element, rather than a fantasy one it makes it un-Disney.

So then....what about Atlantis and Treasure Planet then? Both sci-fi movies by Disney.

I know but there was 20, 000 Leagues Under the Sea and Treaure Island which makes me feel those are more Disney.

Anyway, I have decided to believe that Lilo & Stitch is Disney and has the Disney essence.

I have decided that it is when the Disney essense is applied to sci-fi, to aliens, and to that kind of whackiness and violence. Evidence is in how it changed in look from what Chris Sanders' drew.

I still don't think Walt would have liked it very much, but I guess that doesn't matter as long as it's not saying "f you" or "we don't care" to his legacy and traditions. I mean, sometimes I think it was, which is what I was trying to say, but maybe it wasn't, it's not doing it a lot or so bad, anyway.

I still think some movies are more Disney than others and this is one that is a little on the less Disney side, but, ah well, I'll still believe it was done in the Disney way, to whatever degree.

I still say Stitch's transformation into good was so unlikely and awkward, and his speech at the end sounds strange. He says "they are broken but are good", but who is he to judge what's good when he was so bad in the beginning and just changed like 5 minutes before. I don't get that at all.

I have decided to believe that like magic all films made at the Disney studio somehow keep the Disney essence and the Disney way even if only the littlest bit. It's just...I want Disney to THINK more about making their films be, well, Disney, not something that could be at any other studio.

You know, I don't get what you're saying about Stitch's "transormation" being done awkwardly... I thought it was a nice, gradual change. You really see it starting in some of the scenes with him and Lilo. The Ugly Duckling motif was really nice, IMO.

Is Lilo and Stitch a Disney movie?

Give me a sec...

*Takes the Lilo and Stitch DVD and puts it on the player

*Movie starts, the first logo appears

*It says Walt Disney Pictures

*Then it says "Walt Disney Pictures Presents..."

Yes, it's a Disney movie.

I like the bond Lilo has with Stitch from the very beginning. She later tells him she understands why he is the way he is without spelling out the obvious: she herself acts out over being hurt and angry that her family is broken. I think a lot of people who don't like the movie completely miss that and pass Lilo off a spoiled brat, and Stitch as a mindless alien monster that only changes for the sake of happy Disney ending.

enigmawing wrote:I like the bond Lilo has with Stitch from the very beginning. She later tells him she understands why he is the way he is without spelling out the obvious: she herself acts out over being hurt and angry that her family is broken. I think a lot of people who don't like the movie completely miss that and pass Lilo off a spoiled brat, and Stitch as a mindless alien monster that only changes for the sake of happy Disney ending.

But then why does Stitch do it? Isn't he just an experiment programmed to kill? I can understand Disney saying something like "love and goodness are so powerful even a creature made for the opposite can change", but I still didn't feel his transition was very believable . I think it's because I wish I had seen some sort of sentience in him from the beginning, like he had a good heart underneath all the time.

Disney Duster wrote:But then why does Stitch do it? Isn't he just an experiment programmed to kill? I can understand Disney saying something like "love and goodness are so powerful even a creature made for the opposite can change", but I still didn't feel his transition was very believable . I think it's because I wish I had seen some sort of sentience in him from the beginning, like he had a good heart underneath all the time.

Stitch is a blank slate programmed to be evil. As it is spelled out in the movie, he has no memories, nothing to comfort him in the quiet of the night. As he gains awareness and his own consciousness through his experiences, he realizes he feels lost with no family, and even sets out to find his before being told he doesn't have one and thus can "never belong." It takes time to realize that he can be a part of Lilo's family, that he can care for others and does indeed have a heart. Those things become more important to him than the programmed urges of destruction thanks to his friendship with someone that didn't immediately judge him.

I think one of the major points in the movie is that he really was the opposite in the beginning and was capable of the change thanks to Lilo. If he'd have had any heart in the very beginning, the story he went through would have much less of an impact.

Well, okay, first of all, I have heard of tabula rasa about the theory that people are blank slates from birth and they get experiences that make them who they are. However, this would mean people are empty and have no soul that is truly them, a soul that decides who they are when they look at their experiences.

I think it's pretty horrible the idea of anyone creating a being that is alive but is a blank slate and programmed just to be a certain way. That's one way science could be very bad and horrible if they ever did that for real.

Anyway, you sound like you are saying Stitch is empty and gains a soul or heart, and it shouldn't be that way, then it's like Stitch isn't Stitch by the end of the story, but a new Stitch. 'm having a hard time explaining what I mean, but I can't believe Stitch didn't have any heart or soul to change by his own decisions examining his experiences.

That's also a VERY un-Disney thing, Walt would most definately not approve, but even if you won't listen to that, look at Beauty and the Beast. The idea there was that underneath the Prince's spoiledness was a soul that could love and be kind. He was not Gaston, who was evil through and through.

I would have to believe Stitch did have a heart and soul that was meant to be good and decided to be good on his own after what he experienced, and they just maybe didn't show that too well.

You know in a way... hearing this interpreted this way (by EW, and also in Duster's comments)... It kind of makes Stitch sound like a sort of version of Hans Christian Andersen's original Little Mermaid and her desire to gain a soul....

Wow, it sounds even more beautiful when you look at it that way!

Disney Duster wrote:That's also a VERY un-Disney thing, Walt would most definately not approve, but even if you won't listen to that, look at Beauty and the Beast. The idea there was that underneath the Prince's spoiledness was a soul that could love and be kind. He was not Gaston, who was evil through and through.

I don't believe that Gaston was evil through and through. They even made a point to make sure he wasn't an obvious villain in the earlier parts of the film, he's just egotistical, ignorant, and manipulative. He doesn't truly become evil until he gets desperate enough to plan on murdering the Beast.

Had there been a different set of circumstances perhaps he could have gained a redemption like the Beast did.

Belle was the Beast's redemption. If Gaston had shown some sort of kindness to Belle, she would have seen kindness in him and learned to love him, too.

I don't think you understand...the idea is that inside of people is a heart that will do good or bad. I understand people can be bad sometimes and be good later, but the idea is underneath it all that, you were a good person just waiting to do good, you had a good heart. And then there's people who do evil till the day they die, maybe they did some good sometimes but in the end they chose evil. I like to believe everyone is good, but can turn evil. It is not that you are empty and turn either way. In you is something that decides to be good or bad, and if it decides to be good, what is in you must be good.

If people change willy nilly, they don't have much of an identity. It's swapping identities instead of being a person who was destined to do good or bad. There needs to be identity and soul and heart.

enigmawing wrote:I like the bond Lilo has with Stitch from the very beginning. She later tells him she understands why he is the way he is without spelling out the obvious: she herself acts out over being hurt and angry that her family is broken. I think a lot of people who don't like the movie completely miss that and pass Lilo off a spoiled brat, and Stitch as a mindless alien monster that only changes for the sake of happy Disney ending.

That's so true. Yet, it's really not hard to miss.

Disney Duster wrote:Well, okay, first of all, I have heard of tabula rasa about the theory that people are blank slates from birth and they get experiences that make them who they are. However, this would mean people are empty and have no soul that is truly them, a soul that decides who they are when they look at their experiences.

But that's true.

Disney Duster wrote:I think it's pretty horrible the idea of anyone creating a being that is alive but is a blank slate and programmed just to be a certain way.

That's why Jumba is an evil scientist at the beginning of the movie.

Disney Duster wrote:Anyway, you sound like you are saying Stitch is empty and gains a soul or heart

No, because he has no 'soul' and he already had a heart, otherwise he wouldn't be living.

Disney Duster wrote:and it shouldn't be that way, then it's like Stitch isn't Stitch by the end of the story, but a new Stitch.

No, it's the same Stitch, but he's just altered by experiences. Just like human beings.

Disney Duster wrote:I'm having a hard time explaining what I mean, but I can't believe Stitch didn't have any heart or soul to change by his own decisions examining his experiences.

That's irrelevant. The movie explicitly states he's a blank slate, an experiment.

Disney Duster wrote:That's also a VERY un-Disney thing, Walt would most definately not approve

I always felt the soul was merely the force of physical life and that ppl gain a personality through their experience as an individual.

Oh honestly, UD.


I don't understand this debate. It was released by Disney so it's Disney; it may not be something Walt Disney himself released, but neither was The Lion King or The Little Mermaid. We can't know what Walt would have wanted. What's that famous line? "Keep moving forward"; that's what Walt would surely have wanted, to have the studio explore different genres and formulas. And may be he wouldn't have gone the route Chris Sanders did, but nobody could know what Walt would have done in 2002.


Now, all opposing arguments taken into consideration:

Would Anastasia be a Disney movie for using past Disney genres and formulas? Would Thumberlina or The Last Unicorn? Enlighten me.

Disney Duster wrote: That's also a VERY un-Disney thing, Walt would most definately not approve, b

Goliath, this will actually be easy to explain.

First, tabula rasa is only a theory. Many people in the world have different theories. At least you can acknowledge that there is no way anyone in the world can know everything.

Next is, you knew what I meant when I was saying "heart" in the non-physical sense, and:

Goliath wrote:No, it's the same Stitch, but he's just altered by experiences. Just like human beings.

But if Stitch was empty except for a blank slate or force, he would eseentially be nothing. Then all that happened was ideas were put into him. Meaning he is no more than what people shoved into him.It means there was no Stitch before, and this new thing he is is really just a bunch of ideas about love and goodness together.

Finally, to you and ajmrowland, I can explain why we are not blank slates that are just filled. As ajm said, there is a force in us, what we may call a soul and a heart, and also a free will. We aren't just the random things that happen to us, we make choices and decisions. We choose the things we want to be from what happens to us.

So, for example, Stitch could have done other things even when good was presented to him, but chose to be good after they happened. His soul chose to be good after he thought about it. I could believe a soul went into Stitch that Jumba wasn't aware all life, even experimented on, recieved.

But there is a problem, and that's if Stitch only turned good because he was forced to, because bad things forced him to, like being left alone, then it wasn't his choice, he was made to do it.

If you want to believe Stitch was a blank slate, an absolute nothing that was either forced into good or just had good ideas put into him, fine, but that's not a very good powerful movie at all.

If you want to think you are as random as everything that ever happened to you, fine, but it's not true.

To explain it further...we've all watched a lot of the same Disney movies when were very, very young, but only some of us liked certain ones and others liked other ones at the same age. The thing in us that liked which ones is our soul and is who we are. All the same things, same movies happened to us, but our individual souls only liked certain ones.

People think about things and decide before they are changed. They aren't nothing, they aren't empty inside. Sometimes people get brain-washed but then they have a very passive inside, a passive soul that chooses to just let things happen to them.

Another way of explaining it is, ajm, you said that you think we gain our personality later in life? But why that personality? Because we randomly ran into it? It randomly ran into us? If you feel you didn't have a self, an identity, and think that all you are is random, I feel bad for you. But you don't have to believe that. Your soul is what chose and likes the personality you have. That's how you know you have a soul and aren't random. Because the personality you have your soul chose. Even if it chose it later in life, your soul still chose it so your soul is really what you are. Your soul is the thing that chooses. If it likes that personality in a way it is that personality.

Duckburger wrote:No offense, but why was this even a question?

What defines a Disney movie. Last time I checked, Disney was a company, not some person's vision of perfection.

100% with you!!!!

Duckburger wrote:No offense, but why was this even a question?

What defines a Disney movie. Last time I checked, Disney was a company, not some person's vision of perfection.

100% with you!!!!

We choose the things we want to be from what happens to us.

coming from you, that's wisdom.

but personality isnt something we run into randomly later in life, but rather something that forms from a culmination of everything we have in our lives-people, situations, choices our parents made, and the culture we live in. really, the only random thing is our interests. it forms over the course of growing up.