DVDizzy Forum

Sotiris wrote:Although the new "Pooh" film is a sort of a sequel, it will be included as a "Classic" in the official canon since it will be created by the WDAS.

Oh my God...

Then what's the difference with 'Tigger Movie', 'Piglet's Big Movie', 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie' and God knows how many more Pooh-cash-cows? This new Pooh film is just another addition in a long line of uninspired cash-ins. It doesn't deserve a place in the Classics canon. This really shows Disney is kaput.

Goliath wrote:

Sotiris wrote:Although the new "Pooh" film is a sort of a sequel, it will be included as a "Classic" in the official canon since it will be created by the WDAS.

Oh my God...

Then what's the difference with 'Tigger Movie', 'Piglet's Big Movie', 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie' and God knows how many more Pooh-cash-cows? This new Pooh film is just another addition in a long line of uninpired cash-ins. It doesn't deserve a place in the Classics canon. This really shows Disney is kaput.

Well, tell that to The Rescuers Down Under, a sequel that made its place in the Disney canon.

Goliath wrote:

Sotiris wrote:Although the new "Pooh" film is a sort of a sequel, it will be included as a "Classic" in the official canon since it will be created by the WDAS.

Oh my God...

Then what's the difference with 'Tigger Movie', 'Piglet's Big Movie', 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie' and God knows how many more Pooh-cash-cows? This new Pooh film is just another addition in a long line of uninpired cash-ins. It doesn't deserve a place in the Classics canon. This really shows Disney is kaput.

Because it's based on the original A.A. Milne books, which can't be said for the million spin-offs. Plus it's animated by some of the top people at the studio like Andreas Deja, Eric Goldberg, and Mark Henn. It's a return to form and is a more logical sequel choice for Disney's canon than, say The Rescuers Down Under.

DisneyJedi wrote:Well, tell that to The Rescuers Down Under, a sequel that made its place in the Disney canon.

...and, technically, Fantasia 2000.

Goliath wrote:Then what's the difference with 'Tigger Movie', 'Piglet's Big Movie', 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie' and God knows how many more Pooh-cash-cows?

Although a few "Pooh" films have been released theatrically, those were done by DsneyToon Studios (the same that produced all of the animated DTVs) and therefore excluded from the official canon.

Also, the original "The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh" was just shorts put together.

This will finally be an official WDAS DAC of Winnie the Pooh!

I just think this should probably be the last one. But you never know what the future will be like that makes it seem like we should get more.

The Hercules shot was quite bad.

Hunchback looked like it got a good restoration though!!

Also, check out the difference between Dumbo and Bambi.

DisneyJedi wrote:Well, tell that to The Rescuers Down Under, a sequel that made its place in the Disney canon.

Even though that movie sucked balls, too... It wasn't the next movie in a line of at least 5 sequels and two tv shows, like Pooh.

Disneykid wrote:Because it's based on the original A.A. Milne books, which can't be said for the million spin-offs. Plus it's animated by some of the top people at the studio like Andreas Deja, Eric Goldberg, and Mark Henn. It's a return to form and is a more logical sequel choice for Disney's canon than, say The Rescuers Down Under.

It's just another Pooh movie in a long line of cash-cows, and the failure of Disney to not come up with an original idea and just put the 'Classics' label on their sub-par sequels just shows how deep Disney has sunken. There already was a Pooh movie based on the A.A. Milne books, put together in 1977. This is just a repetition. A new low for Disney. This makes me lose hope entirely.

No wonder Pixar has become the superior animation studio.

Sotiris wrote:Although a few "Pooh" films have been released theatrically, those were done by DsneyToon Studios (the same that produced all of the animated DTVs) and therefore excluded from the official canon.

But it's an artificial distinction. A movie is called a 'Classic' just because it was made a specific place. That's stupid, isn't it? It doesn't matter that it's a cheap, lazy repetition of a film that was already put out in 1977. It doesn't matter that the general audience and critics won't see the difference between this one and the other million Pooh-productions. Just because it was made at a specific place, it's called a 'Classic'...

I agree about the unfair labeling of "classic" that is too liberally applied, though in a way I also see how all Disney feature films maybe should be treated as classics because it's subjective and all the films are probably loved and thought classics by someone.

But I do not agree with the rest.

This Winnie the Pooh film is not cheap and lazy! This is the first time Walt Disney Feature Animation is making a Pooh film, isn't it? This is what they really wanted to make.

What would you do if they did more movies of Black Cauldron books? Or what about when Mort is done, what if they made more movies from more Discworld books? Would you think those sequels were cheap and lazy?

And wait till you see the film before you judge it, even though it is obvious that they are putting a lot of effort into this. The animation and backgrounds look and feel so much like the original Adventures, I just can't believe they managed to capture that Disney magic!

In fact, I read, "It was always Walt Disney's intention to create a feature film, but he decided to make shorts instead — after production had begun — to familiarize US audiences with the characters."

Now's there chance to really do a full-length film like Walt wanted.

Here's the thing: the post-Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh- unless I'm mistaken- didn't follow any of the original AA Milne stories. So this new Pooh movie will be that; based on the actual Pooh stories.

Disneykid wrote:

Goliath wrote: Oh my God...

Then what's the difference with 'Tigger Movie', 'Piglet's Big Movie', 'Pooh's Heffalump Movie' and God knows how many more Pooh-cash-cows? This new Pooh film is just another addition in a long line of uninpired cash-ins. It doesn't deserve a place in the Classics canon. This really shows Disney is kaput.

Because it's based on the original A.A. Milne books, which can't be said for the million spin-offs. Plus it's animated by some of the top people at the studio like Andreas Deja, Eric Goldberg, and Mark Henn. It's a return to form and is a more logical sequel choice for Disney's canon than, say The Rescuers Down Under.

Bingo. Just from what I've seen of it already, it looks WAY better then everything since "Search for Christopher Robin" and "Tigger" Movie," plus it looks and feels more like the original film and looks like the production values are at the same level, if not better.

As has been explained, there are sequels in the DAC, just not many.

^ lol i love Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin

Maybe it's just me, but the Pooh franchise is one of the only ones where I've actually enjoyed most of the sequels. Yes, it is a cash-cow, no doubt about it. But I find the sequels have the same charm as the original shorts (well, I haven't seen the Piglet movie). And maybe it's the disconnected feel of the original "film" that makes the idea of sequels/tv series not so bad.

Wow, when viewing this in HD, you can really tell which films the studios hate. The Lowry ones with the HD masters look great but the others are unstable (shaky), grainy, soft, and damaged. They look older then the movies that are actually older.

Goliath wrote:There already was a Pooh movie based on the A.A. Milne books, put together in 1977. This is just a repetition. A new low for Disney. This makes me lose hope entirely.

Except that film didn't cover all of the stories from the original books, just half of them. The new film covers the other half, so it's not repetition; it's completion.

BK wrote:The Hercules shot was quite bad.

Hunchback looked like it got a good restoration though!!

Do you mean the shot chosen for Hercules was bad or the quality of it was? If it's the latter, I thought the quality was amazing. Here's a comparison:




And Hunchback does appear to be taken from digital sources once I was able to pause it before the confetti covered came up (though the Pocahontas leaves transition's in the way). Another comparison between the DVD and the montage (the DVD image is large, so I'll just link to it):

http://shipperland.de/miracles/hond1/page06_50.JPG



I also noticed that the Alice shot appears to be taken from the upcoming Blu-ray restoration and looks even better than the already-amazing 2004 restoration (Again, DVD on top, YouTube montage on the bottom):

skyler888 wrote:^ lol i love Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin

same here. I liked that and the tv series from the 90's. They kicked ass.

Super Aurora wrote:

skyler888 wrote:^ lol i love Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin

same here. I liked that and the tv series from the 90's. They kicked ass.

MTE, that's the Pooh I grew up with and know, the First movie and this upcoming Sequel ( just from what I heard, that they are sticking with the same vibe as the original ) aren't the bear I identify, or have a childhood nostolgic connection with

I think it's stupid that every animated release from Disney is called a "classic". They should be referred to as Disney Animated Features (DAF), not Disney Animated Classics (DAC). The actually number of Disney "classics", imo, is less than 50. But of course I understand this involves $$$$$$$$ and not true classic/art status.

^ IA about the features thing instead, I mean it notoriety enough for a film to be under the Disney cannon, let's not give the prize of being deemed a "classic" to every movie the company pulls out

I mean Paramount pictures has put out a ton of "classic" motion pictures, but not every movie that it has released under it's label is a "classic" a lot of movies are shit, we shouldn't label Disney movies any different just cause a lot of them are iconic and are often packaged in this sort of lineage


anyways I think we can all be our personal judges on what is deemed a "classic", and only passing years can really define what a "classic" movie really is, I mean people still talk about and love, and appriciate and watch "Lilo and Stitch" which doesn't have the "classic" Disney plot points, while no one would really even remember "Chicken Little". So it really does depend on the quality, the public's reaction to and how years later people feel about it.


anyway, it's 3 am as I type this, I hope it is coherent in the morning

I really like this presentation of Disney's 50! Very handsomely done.