Page 2 of 3
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:42 am
by reyquila
Why? Are these things biblical dogmas or just economic icons and money making tools? Please.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 8:55 am
by toonaspie
I'm in a script writing class right now and I feel depressed. Why? Because I believed that I could go into Hollywood and spark it with some originality.
Sadly I've been shown the truth. Hollywood is like a high school trend, if you dont keep up with it then youre gonna fail. Sadly the current trend in Hollywood is that bad looking films can make money. It's all about the money. Disney wants to be a part of a trend it doesnt necessarily have to be in with the money they make.
Excuse me while I crawl under my bed and cry.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:49 am
by MK Sharp
What's next? Will they really make a Bambi sequel (not the midquel in the works now) where Bambi's mom had a flesh wound and was taken away to some petting zoo for 20 odd years? Will Cinderella 3 involve the redemption of Drizella a la C2's redemption of Anastasia? Will they decide to completely tear down the medium-sized castle at Disneyland and build something taller and grander? Will they decide "Hey, since the Classics are proven hits, and CGI is the new thing, let's remake all our classics in CGI, starting with Snow White!"?
Coming soon from Disney... Steamboat Willie II, in which Captain Pete realises the error of his ways, and helps Mickey peel those potatoes. They become firm friends and have wacky adventures on the river at Podunk Landing. In 3D CGI.
A talking Tinkerbell. How silly. And Captain Hook will make a guest appearance with two hands, no doubt.
As with any company, Disney is going to exploit any possible source of money.
No doubt following the old dictum of
Ars Gratia Pecuniae.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:54 am
by MK Sharp
reyquila wrote:Why? Are these things biblical dogmas or just economic icons and money making tools? Please.
It's one thing to exploit an established character - fair enough, that's business. But what's the point in radically changing the character in doing so, so that they lose much of the point of the original characterisation.
Heck, if you're going to give Tink a voice, you might as well do something equally radical like turning Goofy from a hopeless hayseed klutz into a surburban husband.... aah....
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:22 am
by Escapay
reyquila wrote:Why? Are these things biblical dogmas or just economic icons and money making tools? Please.
Naturally they're economic icons and money making tools. But they are far from biblical dogmas.
It's just that people expect certain things to be a certain way (case in point, Tinkerbelle not having a voice). To suddenly change that all in the name of marketing would be too jarring for fans, and could ultimately end up hurting the Tinkerbelle franchise.
Escapay
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:31 am
by 2099net
Yes, but lots of characters/concepts have changed FOR NO GOOD REASON in the past. Disney and "Evil Eisner"

are not doing anything any other media company would do:
Various BATMEN (comics, tv, cartoons, movies)
The new CATWOMAN film
The new EXCORIST movie
The old PUNISHER movie
The ULTIMATE Marvel characters
The New TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES
The Old TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES (from the underground comic)
The MEN IN BLACK movie
The "New" 60's FLASH (Barry Allen)
The "New" 60's Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)
Oh and Don't forget
Chip n Dale in Rescue Rangers

etc
I think the real question is should Disney be altering a character they "may not" own the copyright to?
After all, if Tinkerbelle is Public Domain (and GOSH claims she isn't) then isn't Disney's Pete Public Domain too? After all, his first apperances in the Alice comedies are Public Domain, and they're from an year now out of copyright. Disney can argue Public Domain rights all they want to, but we all know Disney would absolutely not let anyone play around or alter Pete. I think this will be very interesting to follow over the next couple of years.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:03 pm
by pinkrenata
I really do hate to be the picky crab here, but it is spelled Tinker Bell. Two words, not one, and Belle is a Disney princess, not a fairy. Sorry. I couldn't contain myself. Don't you just hate it when people pick on your spelling?

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:47 pm
by Jack
Thanks for the correction, Pinkerbelle!

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:17 pm
by Paka
That's what being a mod is for, Ren.

Just go right in and edit their spellings!

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:36 pm
by PocahontasPride
I am appalled and horrified, what are they gonan do? 'Peter Pan 3: Tinker Bell Finds her voice?' I told Disney when I worked for them that they were making some astronimical mistakes in playing with the hearts of their fans, apparently they dont listen
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:20 pm
by The Little Merman
Recently, when I went to the Disney store, and they had a Christmas catalog with Tink on it (of course I couldn't resist picking it up)...So I'm flipping through it and I look at the storybook ornaments: Finding Nemo, Disney Princesses, Mickey and Friends, Disney Fairies, Slee-....WAIT A MINUTE I thought....I look back and like the terrible reality that it is- Disney Fairies ornaments were there. The fairies consist of the Cutest Pixie of All (Tinker Bell), a Middle aged Blue fairy, 3 old fairies, and an unnanmed pixie from Fantasia. Besides the fact Tinker Bell is in the collection, 20 something fairy, 3 old bags, and a pixie from a movie most little children now a days don't know about, doesn't seem to thrill me..or the rest of the general public....
Narrator: Hello children, and welcome to Fairytopia, a MAAAAGICAL place where wonderful things happen. Oh! It's Christmas time here and our pixie friends are getting ready for a party....
Tinker Bell: Oh Flora, Merryweather! How do you like my party dress, it's blue.
Merryweather: I LOVE it!
(Sleeping Beauty music chimes in)
Flora: Ugh..make it pink!
Tink: FLORA! HOW COULD YOU
Merryweather: Make it blue!!!
Flora: Merryweather! Make it pink
Merryweather: Blue...
Tink: Stop, oh, oh, please!!
The Blue Fairy: I'll handle this...
(TBF takes her wand and turns Flora and Merryweather into wooden puppetts- they fall lifeless on the floor)
The Blue Fairy: That's better
Tink: Thanks doll...
(Nutcracker Suite chims in)
(Dances around as flowers appear- she jumps from flower to flower gayly)
Fantasia fairy: La la la la la
Tink: UGHHH! Must you do this EVERY day?!!?
Fantasia fairy: (Louder) LAAAA la la la la
(The Blue Fairy turns Fantasia Fairy in to wooden puppett)
The Blue Fairy: Another problem settled....
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 6:55 pm
by StevEnrique
I bet Tink will sport some "kewl" outfits and go on crazy adventures with her politically correct multi-racial group of fairy friends.
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:07 pm
by Sekaino Jasmine
Well, wait...when they say she'll talk, does that mean she'll actually talk to humans, or maybe just fairies? Sort of like when a movie is set in China or something...they're speaking English, but in reality, they'd be speaking Chinese. If that's how it is, then it makes me feel a little better. Maybe she'll still have the chimes whenever she talks to Peter Pan.
Still, I really can't imagine her talking. That would be really weird.

Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:50 am
by reyquila
PocahontasPride wrote:I am appalled and horrified, what are they gonan do? 'Peter Pan 3: Tinker Bell Finds her voice?' I told Disney when I worked for them that they were making some astronimical mistakes in playing with the hearts of their fans, apparently they dont listen
In order to be heard, you need knowledge and standing !!
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:59 am
by _Kevin_
Well i love the idea of movies but talking is an other one! The movies could be great! But the voice thingy is a little weird but julia roberts should definatly do the voice! I do hope she keeps her bitchy caracter!
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:25 pm
by DreamerQ18
Man this does blow so I mean while we are at it why dont we make Dopey talk. I mean that would ruin it for me

.
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:55 pm
by Kram Nebuer
(Peter has captured Tinker Bell in his hat. Tink is ting-a-linging)
Michael: A firefly!
Wendy: A pixie! (Wendy proceeds to win $200. "I'll take Fantasy Creatures for $400, Alex."

)
John: Amazing!
Michael: What's the pixie doing? (as Tink continues to ting-a-ling)
Peter: Talking.
So according to the history of Disney, Tinker Bell has always been talking. Nothing new here. The only thing is that I hope the 2007 animated movie has subtitles because I can't discern any of the Pixish language.
Lol, okay I know what the real intentions are. I see how they want money and are trying to capitalize on the popularity of a classic character, but as many have said, changing the character is not the way to do it. With the Princess line, the beloved Disney princesses stayed the same and were only pasted on merchandise. This is totally different! This is recreating a character who is known for being a ting-a-linging Pixie. Also, she was the ONLY pixie in Neverland. There was no evidence of other pixies. How are they gonna explain the three friends????
After some deep thought (maybe too deep), Disney may in some way have a right to do this. Afterall, the original Peter Pan play had Tinker Bell as simply a ball of light. The early Peter Pan movie (on the French DVD and seen in the You Can Fly! documentary) changed that by giving her an appearance and look. Disney went with that too. By giving her a voice, they are helping Tinker Bell to slowly evolve from a ball of light into a talking fairy. Speaking of, why can't they promote it as a Pixie products line rather than a Fairy products line since that is what she is.
Though in the end, I hope Sekaino Jasmine's theory is right:
Sekaino Jasmine wrote:Well, wait...when they say she'll talk, does that mean she'll actually talk to humans, or maybe just fairies? Sort of like when a movie is set in China or something...they're speaking English, but in reality, they'd be speaking Chinese. If that's how it is, then it makes me feel a little better. Maybe she'll still have the chimes whenever she talks to Peter Pan.
Will Tink Talk?
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:01 am
by chrisbarry
There seems to be an upcoming push for a new line of Disney Stuff relating to Tinkerbell and her friends from her hometown.
The big question is will Tink be a talking character? This might be a bit blasphemous to some. I don't see how they can build a whole movie around her if she's silent. Any rumours regarding this?
Re: Will Tink Talk?
Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:37 pm
by ichabod
chrisbarry wrote:I don't see how they can build a whole movie around her if she's silent.
Well they managed it with Dumbo!

Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:08 pm
by chrisbarry
Excellent point.