DVDizzy Forum

I haven’t responded because I thought I needed time to come up with a conclusion of whether or not this Essence really exists. And I have to say, I really think it does exist. Even though I was born in ’92 and I grew up with the second wave of Disney Renaissance films, I don’t think that it made me have preconceptions of the films that came after it. I didn’t have a preconceived notion of what a Disney film should be. But, as you ask/say Al, how can we define this Disney Essence? Is it nostalgia as some people call it? Is it simply magic as other’s say? For me, I have decided that it’s sort of a mix of that along with what I believe a Disney product should be. It’s supposed to be magic without necessarily needing a Fairy Godmother or an Evil Queen. They should take us into the story and make us feel for the characters. We want to follow them around and see how their story pans out. Yes, it’s true that some of the DACs don’t have this “magic” quality. Of course, growing up when the second Disney Renaissance was occurring did make me love the films that Disney was producing at that time, because, well, everyone else loved them, too. Like I said, though, those films didn’t make me want to have a new Disney Musical film every year because that’s just what happened. The 90s was a very special period where a bunch of different films with different stories were produced and I did get a sense of how grand a Disney film could be. And when I eventually looked back onto the older Walt films that “magic” was evident; and you can plainly see why Walt was such an influence (it was his company after all) on all of his films. In this new century, however, there have been some films that seem to have less of the Disney Essence than the films of the first and second Disney Renaissance (mind you, many of the Dark Age films also have the Essence, but are overlooked by today’s fans and the company, of course). I for one, in the minority I know, loved loved loved Treasure Planet. I find that film chock-full of Disney Essence. Chicken Little on the other hand, wasn’t as filled with the Essence as other Disney films. However, most of the 21st century DACs do in fact have the Essence. I think I’ll call the Disney Essence a “quality” or an “aspect” of the film that changes depending on the director, script, animation quality, voice work and music (and songs when applicable).

The "Disney Essence" is simple -- high-quality entertainment created for all audiences, all ages. That's it. It's not complicated. Idiots who think they are smarter than Walt have mucked this formula up over the years (the cheapquels, California Adventure, reducing the Disney channel to a tweener network, etc.), and the WDW Fantasyland Expansion proves these idiots still have jobs and continue to do damage...but as the PIXAR films have proved, Walt's "formula" holds up amazingly well in the 21st century.

Got a couple more stray thoughts that I think might help:

Lingering. I think the people who made these films really want you to breathe it all in. They created full worlds that sort of take you away.

There really is a hauntingly-beautiful quality to the animated films. It's the way the music would make the frames come alive and not just appear. And the imagery enriched the music. This isn't always true for the live-action films but for many it is.

Some people have said great things in here, not giving up, but trying to find if there is a Disney magic and essence, having felt there was, and I know everyone can feel it.

I think I can prove why it can't just be nostalgia:

Because when we were little, we all watched many different things. Why was Disney's different even when we were children and we would be feeling nostalgia for them too? When I was little I always felt Disney's were most magical, and were the best.

Next, it is impossible for us to all have felt the same nostalgia. We were all different children, we would all feel differently in our nostalgic feelings.

For these reasons you can see that Disney had something, this one thing (or set of things all together) that was different from other films we viewed in ourchildhood when we would be getting our nostalgia.

Now, my personal response.

First thing is that I always did believe that every film the studio made had a Disney essence to it. Everytime a commercial for a film came on that was by another studio, but seemed like Disney to a lot of people, I could either tell it wasn't Disney, or I would be skeptical, and question if it was Disney. Now, something like Dinosaur was really hard to tell it was Disney and I don't feel that was very Disney, but wasn’t that animated at another studio, anyway? But I'm fine thinking that most of the time, they capture the Disney essence.

No studio can capture the Disney essence or have that kind of magic other than Disney. I'm always going to believe that, but I really feel it's true, I just feel the magic or can tell some other way. Not all people are as discerning, and that's okay, they just aren't the most avid Disney fans. Not even Pixar can capture the Disney magic, their films have never felt like a Disney film to me. Pixar and Disney are still different and that's why they remain seperate identities today.

Sometimes it makes sense when Disney missed the magic. I didn't see Home on the Range but that was the least Disney looking thing I think they had made other than Dinosaur. But I heard people who saw it say it didn't feel Disney, and that makes sense because that was not only when morale was low at the studio, but that was when they were trying not to be Disney, to try and appeal to the crowds they thought didn't like Disney anymore.

I think the live-action films do capture Disney every once in a while, and when they try. I have not seen all of them, but I feel even some of the ones Walt made were not particularly full of Disney essence because he made so many and they were live-action films which were cheaper, quicker, would appeal more to casual audiences, and Walt had less control over them than the animated films. I'm saying I think sometimes he put more Disney essence into things and sometimes not, I think he put it into all his animated films but not as much in all the live-action films, a lot of which were made more for the masses and just keep throwing one after the other. But I have not seen all of them, so, I could be wrong on that.

Even in his animated films, Sleeping Beauty had a little less input than Walt had on the other features, and Sleeping Beauty was a little darker and less warm than the other features. But they were still magical, like how they made love at first sight work yet again, and had Disney’s darkness, which was in many Disney films.

Also, Disney essence is, I think, indescribable, and it should be because, well, usually essences are, but if it could be easily described, that wouldn't be very magical, and also, then any other studio could just copy it and do the same exact thing. But to add to try to describe it, there does seem to be a certain heart and a warmth, other than, inexplicably, a kind of magic.

Take for example the falling in love at first sight that happened in I don’t think just the fairy tales but some other films and shorts. When Disney did it, the way the scenes were done, especially with the music, it was believable they fell in love. It was true magic, making the seemingly impossible be possible. But when Thumbelina did it, it felt weird and unbelievable, it felt like the “lovers” did it too fast. Dozens of Youtube comments noted that. That’s an example how Disney worked magic, but other studios trying to be like Disney did not.

There is also usually a kind of sophisticatedness to the Disney animation, a fineness, also with a cute appeal but never like the other studios attempts at cute, like well built realistic people with exaggerated but believable eyes. Well, I tried to describe that anyway.

Wonderlicious, so you noticed we don't all treat Warner Brothers or Paramount films the same. You see, you just proved it's there, that there is something that makes almost all of Disney's films magical. There are Warner Bros. cartoons fans but never just Warner Bros. fans, and never just Paramount fans. But there are Disney fans.

If Disney really is just a company that makes movies and there's no special quality to them that only they have, then why don't they just rename themselves An Entertainment Company With Lots of Money, if that's all they are? Walt's dead, right? It's because that is not all they are. They have a Disney essence.

If Disney did not have some kind of essence, they wouldn't talk about Disney magic. Notice they choose the word magic, they know that most of their films have a fantasy or magical quality to them, started by Walt. No other studio says "Warners magic" or "Dreamworks magic".

And using the word Disney essence is not just for covering bias. I love The Emporer's New Groove, I'm glad I own that movie and even enjoyed the TV series, but I have to admit it's un-Disney in quite a few ways, it seems a lot like Warner Bros. humour a lot of times. They should have tried to keep it more Disney.

Goliath, well all Walt Disney animated films have the Disney essence and I think even most of the ones right after that, including the "dark age" films. But some of the DTV sequels have it because sometimes they really did try to make a good film. Towards the end of their run, they tried to put more effort in. You have not seen any of the last sequels when this happened so you can't really judge. TLM 3 didn't really seem to have it but Cinderella III and Bambi II had at least a bit. Also maybe Aladdin III, actually. The point is they were trying more.

Rudy Matt wrote:The "Disney Essence" is simple -- high-quality entertainment created for all audiences, all ages. That's it.

You know that's not it. They use the word Disney magic all the time for a reason. You know Walt talked about fantasy and heart and most if not all of his animated films had that fantasy element.

If Disney was only quality family entertainment, guess what, there's a lot of other quality family entertainment out there. There really is. Disney often has more of a heart or a warmth. Disney needs to have, and DOES have more of an identity than just "a good entertainment company".

Finally, I don't understand why if you are here, and if you are Disney fans, you don't at least want to believe in Disney essence or Disney magic. I don't understand why you don't.

Escapay wrote:It's actually a reasonable price, $15 a bottle. But it's only available in the year 1997, so if you want it, you'll need a time machine to get it. Wilbur Robinson is charging $75 per person for rides to 1997. But the in-flight popcorn and Milk Buds are complimentary! And that's good because popcorn and Milk Buds have no adverse affects when consumed whilst wearing Disney Essence.

Well no wonder I've had no luck with ebay. I dread to think of how much I spent on Calgon's discontinued Moonpetal Musk last year, so maybe it's just as well I don't buy any new scents in a while.

Escapay wrote:The only caveat is people can only wear Disney Essence when watching a Disney movie. If they try watching a non-Disney movie whilst wearing Disney Essence, they'll hate the non-Disney movie.

That explains a lot!

Escapay wrote:Other studios have banded together to try to create their own essence perfumes, but failed miserably because they didn't hire a middle-aged mustached guy to appear on television in the 1950s and 60s.

Too bad people like Walter Lantz didn't make more television appearances.

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath, well all Walt Disney animated films have the Disney essence

No. For example, The Sword in the Stone is a very dull, very bland film with very uninspiring characters and a flimsy story that's not told very well. Maybe it's because Walt Disney wasn't very involved, because he had lost interest in animation by that point?

Goliath wrote:But some of the DTV sequels have it because sometimes they really did try to make a good film.

No, because the reason for making them was making quick money, not because the stories needed to be told. It doesn't matter if they tried harder at the end, it was still used to milk the original films for some extra bucks. Walt said he didn't want to do sequels. I thought you were so big on doing "what Walt would have wanted"?

Y

Disney Duster wrote:You know that's not it. They use the word Disney magic all the time for a reason. [...] Finally, I don't understand why if you are here, and if you are Disney fans, you don't at least want to believe in Disney essence or Disney magic. I don't understand why you don't.

If you use the word 'magic' one more time, I'm gonna scream!

Goliath wrote: If you use the word 'magic' one more time, I'm gonna scream!

Disney Duster wrote:

Goliath wrote: If you use the word 'magic' one more time, I'm gonna scream!

............................................................................................................................................................














MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC MAGIC!!!!!!!!

Goliath, what you said about The Sword in the Stone I had thought about, and like Sleeping Beauty I mentioned, with less attention from Walt it had less Disney warmth, but still Disney approved of Eyvind Earle and it had Disney darkness, as well as...well I can't say that word as you told me not to! I still think TSiTS did have some Disney essense, like in the wizard's duel. No Disney film is ever bad, there's at least always something good.

And like I said I feel the essence did carry on right after his passing, it's only relatively now that that the company seems to either want to do too different things, or their not even caring about it anymore, like I'm worried because even Iger said they can pay attention to Walt's legacy anymore or something?

They were doing animal stories and classics, literature and legends like Walt did and they were fine up until things like Dinosaur, Home on the Range, and, well, I won't go all into that again.

As I said I have decided to believe every film they make has at least a little Disney essence and is Disney, just, they aren't all the same amount and sometimes miss a lot.

Goliath wrote:But some of the DTV sequels have it because sometimes they really did try to make a good film.

No, because the reason for making them was making quick money, not because the stories needed to be told. It doesn't matter if they tried harder at the end, it was still used to milk the original films for some extra bucks. Walt said he didn't want to do sequels. I thought you were so big on doing "what Walt would have wanted"?[/quote]

Yes, indeed. But Walt what wanted and Disney essence may be slightly different even though very related. As I said, even some things Walt approved of probably weren't too Disney or exactly what he wanted, namely a lot of the screwy live-action comedies, perhaps because he was just experimenting or just trying to get those live-action films out that masses ate up.

Anyway, just because people order you to do a project for cashing in, does not mean you wouldn't try to put a certain kind of effort, like Disney essence into it. They wanted to do that especially towards the end.

Disney Duster wrote:No Disney film is ever bad, there's at least always something good.

Nope. Home on the Range sucked from beginning to end and had *no* redeeming qualities. And Walt Disney has made a lot of shorts that were real stinkers as well. (I hope I haven't caused too much shock to you.)

Disney Duster wrote:As I said I have decided to believe every film they make has at least a little Disney essence and is Disney, just, they aren't all the same amount and sometimes miss a lot.

First of all, that's a really weird thing to say. Either you believe something or you don't. But how do you "decide" to believe something? And why do you believe it, when you have so much criticism about the latest films? You once said that people who don't believe Disney is unique or makes better products than the competition, aren't "real" Disney fans. I would like to reverse it and say *you* might (!) not be a "real" Disney fan, but just a fan of the *label* 'Disney'.

Disney Duster wrote:Yes, indeed. But [what Walt] wanted and Disney essence may be slightly different even though very related. As I said, even some things Walt approved of probably weren't too Disney or exactly what he wanted,

How can that be if you just said: everything Walt Disney approved of is "Disney". Now you're contradicting yourself.

@ DisneyJedi & Super Aurora: it's different when you do it, because your posts don't all have the word 'magic' in 50 or 100 times.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:Goliath, well all Walt Disney animated films have the Disney essence

No. For example, The Sword in the Stone is a very dull, very bland film with very uninspiring characters and a flimsy story that's not told very well. Maybe it's because Walt Disney wasn't very involved, because he had lost interest in animation by that point?

Actually... I felt it quite a bit during a few moments in the movie. Especially when Merlin and Archimedes are talking while watching Pelinore and Sir Ector train Kay. Then, the scene where Merlin and Arthur are climbing up, then sliding down, the hill. Then, when Kay sort of dares Arthur to go into the dark woods even though he just warned him that he couldn't make it. Then, in the scene where Ector, Kay, and Pelinore are toasting to Kay being knighted and they tell Arthur that he gets to be Kay's new squire. Then, I rather thought the whole ending had that trademark Disney feel. Plus, the opening credits. And storybook sequence I believe (but... terrible folk song- you know which song... terrible song). Then, the scene where it's raining and Pelinore arrives, Archimedes flies to see what's going on.

I'm just going to say it: 101 Dalmatians, stunningly animated though it was, was in fact the beginning of the end of the consistent magic/essence feeling.



And Sleeping Beauty still rules.

Lazario, yes, I especially feel the opening and ending of The Sword in the Stone is classic Disney magic. I mean, the pulling of the sword with the chorus and light.

Goliath, I have not seen Home on the Range, but it sounds like I would agree with you except I heard that the songs, by Alan Menken, are good. Disney always has been linked to Broadway, even hiring stage performers to voice animated films way back in Walt's time.

Maybe he did make some bad shorts. I think there were too many.

And that goes to my next point. I have grown, that means changed, to realize that there were eventually so many things going on in Walt's company (especially as it became more and more a company) that Walt may not have been able to put his magic touch on everything. And then after he died, people had to tap into that magic touch, and they had trouble, then they hit it big, and now it's kind of in trouble again except Tangled sounds good all except for it's title change.

And when I say too many things were going on at the company that includes live-action films. There were so many going on, and live-action appelas to more casual viewers, I can definately see Walt putting less of his touch on a lot of them. Also, there is Touchstone and Miramax, films not labeled Disney, for a reason.

But I still could always tell a Disney film from a non-Disney film is my point. Moreso the animated ones, but that's how it was more than just having to believe it. And these days I still can tell, the logo doesn't have to come up before I know it's Disney or not. Maybe someday I won't be able to tell, but, so far so good. That being able to tell is something Disney does, the Disney way, essence, magic. But it doesn't mean they shouldn't strive to be more Disney with all films and have more consistency.

And I think most, if not all people here can tell, too, which is why I think it's silly for anyone here to say they don't feel or see the Disney essence or Disney magic. Hey, I only said it twice to you. Disney themselves say it all the time!

Disney Duster wrote:But I still could always tell a Disney film from a non-Disney film is my point. That's how it was more than just having to believe it. And these days I still can tell, the logo doesn't have to come up before I know it's Disney or not. Maybe someday I won't be able to tell, but, so far so good.

I'm gonna try something.

Which sounds more "Disney"?

• A US Army officer and his nine men are the first to take an expedition on the Colorado River.
  
  versus
  
  A lonely boy passes through a gateway to a magical world where he must rescue two Princesses trapped in a castle.

albert

Well I did more mean the animated films, the live-action films don't always feel as Disney.

I forgot to say that the live-action films were especially numerous at Disney and would be meant to appeal to more casual audiences, so Walt may have experimented more with them and not put his touch in all of them. At least, not all equally. Some probably got less.

To answer, the latter did sound more Disney to me, but then I thought, why would a lonely boy go into a world to capture two princesses, at least in a Disney film.

Also, what is the definition of magical? Aren't some Disney films that don't have magic in their story supposed to be "magical"?

As it stands, though, the little synopsis you gave of the first answer sounded pretty boring and less Disney. Perhaps Walt didn't put his touch on it, or more likely, two things:

By making the synopsis so bear, you removed the Disney touches as well.

Or

Within the film is the Disney feeling, because Disney's touch cannot be described in words, at least not completely.

OH and I just remembered...they came up with Miramax and Touchstone for, what now, their live-action films? Called them by something different, called them Miramax or Touchstone instead of Disney because...maybe...they were less Disney? The live-actions films were? Yea? Yea.

The former is Ten Who Dared, a live-action film personally produced by Walt Disney, and considered one of the worst Disney movies of all time.

The latter is The Phantom Tollbooth, a partially-live-action mostly-animated film produced by Chuck Jones and MGM, and a helluva lot better than The Aristocats, which came out the same year.

Disney Duster wrote:Well I did more mean the animated films, the live-action films don't always feel as Disney.

To you. To me they're as important as the animated movies.

Disney Duster wrote:I forgot to say that the liev-action films were especially numerous at Disney and would be meant to appeal to more casual audiences, so Walt may have experimented more with them and not put his touch in all of them quite the same.

From Bob Thomas's Walt Disney: An American Original (page 212):

• He was stimulated by the challenges of live-action filming. When he returned to Burbank, he needled his animators: "Those actors over there in England, they're great. You give 'em the lines, and they rehearse it a couple of times, and you've got it on film - it's finished. You guys take six months to draw a scene." The animators took his kidding good-naturedly, but they understood what was happening: Walt had found a new toy. Said one of the animators; "We realized that as soon as Walt rode on a camera crane, we were going to lose him."

He put his "touch" in every live-action film he made. Just because they were more numerous than the animated films doesn't mean he paid less attention to them. If anything, he paid more. Hence why more of the 1960s live-action Disney movies are better than the 1960s animated Disney movies.

Disney Duster wrote:To answer, the latter did sound more Disney to me, but then I thought, why would a lonely boy go into a world to capture two princesses, at least in a Disney film.

RESCUE, not Capture.

Disney Duster wrote:Also, what is the definition of magical? Aren't some Disney films that don't have magic in their story supposed to be "magical"?

Now I know how Goliath feels.

But "magical" in the sense I used simply meant a place where beings have supernatural powers. There's no "If it's Walt, it's magic" correlation. Disney doesn't own the word "magic" anyway.

Disney Duster wrote:As it stands, though, the little synopsis you gave of the first answer sounded pretty boring and less Disney. Perhaps Walt didn't put his touch on it,

Or because it was a crappy movie, no matter how much or how little input Walt had in it. Not everything Walt touched is immediately pure gold, some of it just remains a lousy iron pyrite.

Disney Duster wrote:By making the synopsis so bear, you removed the Disney touches as well.

That was the point. You said you could recognize a Disney movie from a non-Disney movie, so I gave the barest of summary for both films, and you picked the *wrong* movie that sounded "Disney", and unsurprisingly, it was the movie that had the word "magical" in it.

albert

"You see Disney Duster? There's no point in believing in Walt's dream or magic, there's no point in hoping that Disney keeps making any movie. Just go to the other studios who are making much better movies. Why Duster, why are you even on this forum? Don't you know Disney is nothing? They just fluked it when they happened to make a whole slew of good movies. And the fact that there is always something good or magical about all of Walt's animated films, that's a fluke, too. Oh, silly Duster..."

Escapay, if you say all Disney live-action films feel Disney to you, well then, that is actually very good. It means you do feel there is a Disney feeling.

I already knew the kind of thing you posted from that book. I'm well aware that the live-action films became Walt's new toy, as in experimental. Meaning he cared more about experimenting than necessary making heartfelt magical wonderful great Disney films, at least not all of them could be with how many he did.

For instance Sleeping Beauty was slightly more experimental and people feel it had less warmth, though it still had Disney darkness and magic.

Also, as I have mentioned, live-action is harder to control everything about unlike animation where you can control everything. It was much easier for him to put his touch on his animated films where he approved everything down to a character's arm placement in one frame.

It still stands that if the live-action films were as great as the animated ones they would be far more recgonized by everyone today as much as the animated films but they are not.

Escapay wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:To answer, the latter did sound more Disney to me, but then I thought, why would a lonely boy go into a world to capture two princesses, at least in a Disney film.

RESCUE, not Capture.

My mistake, I knew it was rescue and meant rescue.

When I said I could recognize the movies as Disney, that was from watching it, seeing it somehow, previews or otherwise, not a "summary" (hardly) that you personally misconstrued to sound a certain way. I had heard of the Phantom Tollbooth before and even read some of the book, but the way you told it, it was unrecognizable.

The Phantom Tollbooth would actually probably be a good Disney film, by the way.

I also never said everything Disney did was great, just that it was Disney, that it was different from other studios, not better. If it has a name, it should strive to have an identity. If you call yourself a name different from other studios, you should be different than other studios. And Disney was. Most when Walt was alive, then they kept it going, but now, they may be losing it...

But if you want, go ahead and don't believe in Disney magic, be a cynic and non-Disney fan.

I like how you loved trying to trick me and you loved thinking you did. I just loved how you loved that. That made me feel great. You're a real great friend.

Disney Duster wrote:"You see Disney Duster? There's no point in believing in Walt's dream or magic, there's no point in hoping that Disney keeps making any movie. Just go to the other studios who are making much better movies. Why Duster, why are you even on this forum? Don't you know Disney is nothing? They just fluked it when they happened to make a whole slew of good movies. And the fact that there is always something good or magical about all of Walt's animated films, that's a fluke, too. Oh, silly Duster..."

NO BODY is saying that. You're completely over exaggerating and you know it. We all love Disney films here... but immediately, once people disagree with you on this Disney essence, that makes them NOT a Disney fan to you. Every one of us here appreciates and loves films that have been made through Disney Studios (I could go as far as to say more than you do, in some cases).

Disney Duster wrote:But if you want, go ahead and don't believe in Disney magic, be a cynic and non-Disney fan.

What makes you think that just because someone doesn't believe in "Disney magic" that they aren't a Disney fan.. just because YOU say so?
Why should being a fan of Disney be determined by how much you believe in this supposed Disney essence anyways.. You have called so many of us non-Disney fans.

I can't say I have an opinion on whether or not I believe in Disney magic (and oh, how I am getting SO sick of hearing about it).. but I do believe alot of the terminology continues to be used by Disney because of marketing (and you're gobbling all of it up, just what they want people to do). And I'm not saying marketing is why you believe in this Disney magic, before you explode on me.

Escapay wrote:Now I know how Goliath feels.

Finally, somebody who feels my pain.

Disney Duster wrote:"You see Disney Duster? There's no point in believing in Walt's dream or magic, there's no point in hoping that Disney keeps making any movie. Just go to the other studios who are making much better movies. Why Duster, why are you even on this forum? Don't you know Disney is nothing? They just fluked it when they happened to make a whole slew of good movies. And the fact that there is always something good or magical about all of Walt's animated films, that's a fluke, too. Oh, silly Duster..."

This sums up Duster in a nutshell. Duster is the dude down the bottom.
























I made it. photoshop ftw.

Disney Duster wrote:Escapay, if you say all Disney live-action films feel Disney to you, well then, that is actually very good. It means you do feel there is a Disney feeling.

I never said they "feel" anything. I said that they're as important as the animated features, meaning if a person wants to judge Walt Disney's films, to consider the live-action output as well. There's no feeling about it. The live-action movies are just as Disney as the animated ones. Not because of any hackneyed magic or essence that permeates from the spirit within us all. Because it says "Walt Disney" somewhere in the beginning. Ten Who Dared is as Disney as Mary Poppins which is as Disney as Son of Flubber or Rob Roy the Highland Rogue.

Disney Duster wrote:I already knew the kind of thing you posted from that book. I'm well aware that the live-action films became Walt's new toy, as in experimental. Meaning he cared more about experimenting than necessary making heartfelt magical wonderful great Disney films.

You're twisting what the book means.

Walt would go from medium to medium. He started in shorts (Laugh-O-Grams), conquered them (Mickey Mouse), moved on to feature-length animation (Snow White), conquered them (Pinocchio, Fantasia), moved on to live-action (Song of the South, Treasure Island), conquered them (20000 Leagues Under the Sea, Mary Poppins), moved on to television (Disneyland) and theme parks (Disneyland), conquered them (Wonderful World of Color, Disneyland again), and then moved on to living communities (Epcot), then he died. He kept moving forward. Yes, once he found that something worked, that something was successful, he'd keep doing it (animated features, live-action features, plussing the park). But he never remained stagnant or focus on only making one thing outstanding. He was a multi-talented filmmaker, he had his hand in twelve pieces of movie pie, not just the one called Animation.

It's not about "making heartfelt m_____l wonderful great Disney films" the way you mean it ("Walt loves fairy tales, he'll make great fairy tales and future Disney filmmakers should focus on making great fairy tales!"). It's about Walt and his company evolving to becoming better filmmakers/showmen/producers/etc. through different mediums.

Disney Duster wrote:For instance Sleeping Beauty was slightly more experimental and people feel it had less warmth, though it still had Disney darkness and magic.

For once, I dare you to try to support your Disney Essence stance without ever using any reference to an animated movie. There was more to Walt Disney than animated fairy tales, your continued use of them and only them in your arguments shows (to me) not only a limited knowledge of the man and his work, but a limited recognition/respect for his other works.

Disney Duster wrote:Also, as I have mentioned, live-action is harder to control everything about unlike animation where you can control everything. It was much easier for him to put his touch on his animated films where he approved everything down to a character's arm placement in one frame.

That's not the point. That has nothing to do with "Essence". Filmmaking is filmmaking, and control is always something that is...hard to control. It's a collaborative effort, it takes more than one person to make a film. Foisting a lot of its success/failure on one man's final word is an insult to the hundreds of other people who helped make the film. So Walt didn't have 100% control on how James MacArthur portrayed True Son in A Light in the Forest, that doesn't mean it's a lesser attempt on Walt's part to make a good movie. Bill Peet pretty much controlled The Sword in the Stone from beginning to end and Walt had a great deal of respect for the man. He trusted his judgment so much which is WHY Bill Peet had so much control on the film.

Disney Duster wrote:It still stands that if the live-action films were as great as the animated ones they would be far more recgonized by everyone today as much as the animated films but they are not.

Recognition is not what makes a film great or lousy. The film's qualities are what make it great or lousy. Just because 100,000 Disney fans know about 101 Dalmatians but only 10,000 of them know about Toby Tyler doesn't mean that Toby Tyler is a lousy film.

Disney Duster wrote:When I said I could recognize the movies as Disney, that was from watching it, seeing it somehow, previews or otherwise, not a "summary" (hardly) that you personally misconstrued to sound a certain way.

How did I personally misconstrue my one-sentence summary for Ten Who Dared or The Phantom Tollbooth? The former IS about a US army officer and his nine men going on the first expedition of the Colorado River. The latter IS about a lonely boy who passes through a gateway to a magical world and rescues two Princesses. You only think I misconstrued it because I picked a Disney movie that *gasp* doesn't have the word "magic" anywhere in its summary. Or "Princess".

Disney Duster wrote:I had heard of the Phantom Tollbooth before and even read some of the book, but the way you told it, it was unrecognizable.

That was the point. To present you with two summaries for movies that anyone would not be able to recognize where it was from (or, if they could, then they really know their movies). And if you were as Disney a fan as you think you are, you'd have recognized which one was a Disney movie.

Disney Duster wrote:But if you want, go ahead and don't believe in Disney magic, be a cynic and non-Disney fan.

So because I like a wide range of Disney films beyond their animated features, along with the fact that I enjoy Walt and post-Walt material in various mediums (television, theme parks, music), I'm a non-Disney fan simply because I refuse to subscribe to your twisted perception of what Disney is? That's worth a brick wall.



And apparently it makes me a cynic. Double brick wall.

Disney Duster wrote:I like how you loved trying to trick me and you loved thinking you did. I just loved how you loved that. That made me feel great. You're a real great friend.

Lordy. You think I was trying to "trick" you simply by asking if you could recognize which of the two summaries was a Disney movie? Triple brick wall.





You made the claim that you could recognize a Disney movie from a non-Disney movie, so I gave you the chance. Because you made the wrong choice, you're saying you were tricked.

Heartless wrote:Why should being a fan of Disney be determined by how much you believe in this supposed Disney essence anyways.

If you clap your hands and believe, then the essence will live. It's like a leap year's full moon!

• Blanche: Anything can happen on a leap year's full moon if you just believe.
  Dorothy: [clapping] Oh I do believe, I do believe in sluts!

BTW, Heartless, what IS the source of your name? The Kanye West song? Cause it certainly isn't an adjective to describe you.

albert