DVDizzy Forum

Sky Syndrome wrote:That squirrel was sad but would have gotten over it by then and I think a squirrel would rather stay who they are meant to be, a squirrel, with other squirrels. And King Arthur didn't get with a transformed squirrel in real life.

And Pocahontas didn't walk right up to a mother bear with cubs and cuddle a cub in her arms in real life.[/quote]
If you think that playing with a talking animal is the same as changing who the main character truly fell in love with and married...well no, it's not.

Disney Duster wrote: If you think that playing with a talking animal is the same as changing who the main character truly fell in love with and married...well no, it's not.

You know, that Pocahontas was only a child and never fell in love with John Smith, do you?

Disney Duster wrote:If you think that playing with a talking animal is the same as changing who the main character truly fell in love with and married...well no, it's not.

Ugh! Here we go again

I'll try and keep things on track.

Here are some other stories that I would love to see as DACs:

A Sprig of Rosemary
The Secret Garden
The Phantom Tollbooth
The Gruffalo

@Super Aurora:That Anne Frank poster is disturbing

Scamander wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: If you think that playing with a talking animal is the same as changing who the main character truly fell in love with and married...well no, it's not.

You know, that Pocahontas was only a child and never fell in love with John Smith, do you?

Yes, but there are rumors they had "a thing" between them, and Disney kept it that they didn't actually get married. King Arthur getting married to a squirrel would greatly change King Arthur being married to Guinevere. She did apparently have an affair with Sir Lancelot, but that adulterous affair would be un-Disney to include, as would Arthur marrying a squirrel instead.

I feel the need to point out that there's not even any proof that King Arthur existed. And certainly, if he did, he likely didn't have a wizard companion named Merlin, a sword named Excalibur, a round table, or an evil half-sister. Guinevere is King Arthur's wife in traditional folk tale as well as in the book that Disney's The Sword in the Stone is based on, but the argument that excluding her from any adaptation because of historical basis is faulty, because, yes, she may not have existed either.

But, back to the topic at hand, if they could expand it, The Velveteen Rabbit would make for a lovely picture. Swan Lake and Thumbelina would be nice, but I sometimes wonder if Disney would be willing to take on those two fairy tale titles since they already have (kind of) well-known adaptations. Rumplestiltskin might actually be a good property for them to look into now. I've always been a fan of Andersen's The Wild Swans, but I see it more as an atmospheric live-action film, in the vein of Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast.

Haven't we just had a transformation tale?Anyone?

I don't want Disney anywhere near any of the stories you listed, not until the company puts an end to its current philosophy of making CG-only films and giving ridiculous "contemporary" titles to classic stories.

Disney Duster wrote:

DC Fan wrote:And Arthur could merry the squirel... having transformed her human.

That squirrel was sad but would have gotten over it by then and I think a squirrel would rather stay who they are meant to be, a squirrel, with other squirrels. And King Arthur didn't get with a transformed squirrel in real life.

It's called a joke.

UmbrellaFish wrote:I feel the need to point out that there's not even any proof that King Arthur existed. And certainly, if he did, he likely didn't have a wizard companion named Merlin, a sword named Excalibur, a round table, or an evil half-sister.

This Donald Duck comic should interest you:

http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/ ... oc=D950792

In this story, author Don Rosa (who prides himself on using only historically accurate facts to build his tales on) presents Arthur as a Keltic ruler whose appearance is not anywhere near the usual picture we see in popular media. At the end of the story, he hints at the fact that the stories we know about Arthur nowadays are all fictional because they were made up to impress and frighten his adversaries.

Mooky wrote:I don't want Disney anywhere near any of the stories you listed, not until the company puts an end to its current philosophy of making CG-only films and giving ridiculous "contemporary" titles to classic stories.

*Applause!*

Goliath wrote:In this story, author Don Rosa (who prides himself on using only historically accurate facts to build his tales on) presents Arthur as a Keltic ruler whose appearance is not anywhere near the usual picture we see in popular media. At the end of the story, he hints at the fact that the stories we know about Arthur nowadays are all fictional because they were made up to impress and frighten his adversaries.

Thanks for the comic, it was entertaining. And certainly, Rosa's take on the tale is much more accurate to what a real King Arthur would have been like, if he existed.

Super Aurora wrote:I noticed that too. I just thought that poster was amusing and hilarious. Not to mention the Nazi woman look like Helga Sinclair too.

Oh it is, and I saw that point brought up elsewhere online. Gives more errie/sad/funny credbility to the overall design.

UmbrellaFish wrote:I feel the need to point out that there's not even any proof that King Arthur existed. And certainly, if he did, he likely didn't have a wizard companion named Merlin, a sword named Excalibur, a round table, or an evil half-sister. Guinevere is King Arthur's wife in traditional folk tale as well as in the book that Disney's The Sword in the Stone is based on, but the argument that excluding her from any adaptation because of historical basis is faulty, because, yes, she may not have existed either.

I know that it is debated if King Arthur or Quinevere were real or not.

Then the one thing stopping any squirrel marrying is that if this were a sequel to The Sword in the Stone, it should follow The Sword in the Stone mythology which had him marry Quinevere.

I got to say Don Quixote and Four Town Musicians of Bremen.

Disney Duster wrote:I know that it is debated if King Arthur or Quinevere were real or not.

Then the one thing stopping any squirrel marrying is that if this were a sequel to The Sword in the Stone, it should follow The Sword in the Stone mythology which had him marry Quinevere.

Unless, of course, Merlin changes the squirrel into Guinevere? An idea, I'll admit, that's a bit stupid.

Wonderlicious wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I know that it is debated if King Arthur or Quinevere were real or not.

Then the one thing stopping any squirrel marrying is that if this were a sequel to The Sword in the Stone, it should follow The Sword in the Stone mythology which had him marry Quinevere.

Unless, of course, Merlin changes the squirrel into Guinevere? An idea, I'll admit, that's a bit stupid.

Hardly stupid. Internet loves that whole concept, though the squirrel is often referred to as Hazel.

East of the Sun and West of the Moon was actually going to be a animated feature in the mid 80's produced by Don Bluth. The proposed film never got past the planning stages and some concept art, due to a lack of interest and funding from investors...but, if you search online and on Facebook, I think you can find some of the artwork for the main characters. Visually it looked magnificent!!

Like others have mentioned, I'd love to see Disney adapt Swan Lake and Don Quixote; although it's unlikely they would re-adapt it, I'd also like to see a 'real', more faithful version of Treasure Island. Most of all, I'd like to see Disney to adapt more Greek mythology (but perhaps not in the same continuity as Hercules) and 'Arabian Nights' tales. I would be interested to see what the likes of Ron Clements and John Musker would do with the stories of Perseus, etc.

However, even though this isn't to do with adapting stories, I want to see more DACs like Lilo & Stitch: original, unique and contemporary without pop culture references.

Disney Duster wrote:If you think that playing with a talking animal is the same as changing who the main character truly fell in love with and married...well no, it's not.

Do yourself a favour and shut up.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:However, even though this isn't to do with adapting stories, I want to see more DACs like Lilo & Stitch: original, unique and contemporary without pop culture references.

Elvis is part of pop culture.

Linden wrote:Elvis is part of pop culture.

Good point. Nonetheless, what I really meant was that Lilo & Stitch doesn't rely simply on pop culture references to create humour (when Elvis is used in a gag, there's something other than the reference to make it funny), which is in stark contrast to many other modern animated films.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Linden wrote:Elvis is part of pop culture.

Good point. Nonetheless, what I really meant was that Lilo & Stitch doesn't rely simply on pop culture references to create humour (when Elvis is used in a gag, there's something other than the reference to make it funny), which is in stark contrast to many other modern animated films.

That's sort of a good point. DIsney needs to do more hand drawn films and less CGI.