DVDizzy Forum

You guys kill me. Nobody said this film was going to be using the same exact characters interpretations as in the Disney classic. Nobody said that. In fact, it's highly doubtful this will happen. Probably none of you have ever read the book, have you? The movie has not yet been made, and perhaps it never will be. I suppose you think the "Tinkerbell" cheapquel will be vastly superior to anything they do with this new property.

I mean, back in the early 90s when Michael Jackson wanted to star as Peter Pan in a film based on the Broadway play, then you can be vocal and make a stink about it. But as long as this CGI PP is at least better than say, "The Polar Express," it'll probably be a wonderful film. Chill out.

Well said Owlzindabarn! Let's have faith in Disney!

Well, I've no qualms about the prequel (the book is supposedly amazing), but I really hope it's not in CGI: it just looks bad to have 1 film in the trilogy in CGI, while the other two are hand-drawn (PP & RtNL).

I started reading this book at Target (but I didn't buy it). So far it doesn't seem too bad. In the very beginning Peter and his friends were being taken from an orphanage and brought to a ship called the Neverland. There were pirate-like adult characters but no Captain Hook yet. I remember in DisneyMagazine they had an article about this book and the author's daughter, while being read the novel Peter Pan, asked how Peter and Captain Hook met. I'm guessing that's what the story is about. And also there is a Wendy-like character in the book too.

I wouldn't mind seeing a story like this, but I don't know about a CGI version. Live-action sounds good, but if Disney is promoting it as a prequel to its own Peter Pan films, IMO, traditionally drawn animation is the only way it will work.

Peter Pan is actually part of the attraction Mickey's Philharagic at Disneyworld and I thought he looked rather good. In fact with the exception of Jasmine I thought they all looked good.

I say let them take a shot at it. If it works it does, if it does not work then we can all ignore it forever.

Mr. Toad wrote:Peter Pan is actually part of the attraction Mickey's Philharagic at Disneyworld and I thought he looked rather good. In fact with the exception of Jasmine I thought they all looked good.

I say let them take a shot at it. If it works it does, if it does not work then we can all ignore it forever.

Speaking of which, did anyone noticed that they used the original soundtracks for the other movies but they re-recorded You Can Fly! x 3? I was a bit surprised that they did this, but glad because when I was little, for some strange reason I though big chorus singing was kind of scary.

Some of the 2DDisney characters in CGI really did work well like Peter Pan. Lumiere looked awesome! Flounder and Ariel looked kind of weird but you're right, Disney should take a shot at it. The commercials for Disneyland's 50th look pretty good. Stitch transferred to CGI perfectly. Though it was hard to tell with Cinderella. Anyhow, a CGI Peter Pan movie meant to be a prequel to DIsney's 2D films just doesn't seem to work for me...

I'm not sure what I think about this, but the positive side would be that the Peter Pan Platinum Edition (or whatever they choose to call it) will likely be released in time to tie-in with its debut.

reyquila wrote:But stop your propaganda, its boring.

Propaganda?

Kram Nebuer wrote:Speaking of which, did anyone noticed that they used the original soundtracks for the other movies but they re-recorded You Can Fly! x 3? I was a bit surprised that they did this, but glad because when I was little, for some strange reason I though big chorus singing was kind of scary.

Be Our Guest was at least partially re-recorded because the words at the beginning are slightly different to be more appropriate for the setting. I agree that most of the characters looked very good in CGI (plus 3-D glasses), but they still looked a little baloony and not as nice as their original '2-D' forms.

-Aaron

Hmmm lets see.

Definition - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause

I think, it would qualify.

Aaron - I was going to comment on that to. They mentioned Jerry Orbach had gone and re recorded some work for Philharmagic at the time of his death. So yes, at least part of the Beauty and Beast segment was re recorded.

I still say we should do it the old fashioned way... pitchforks and torches.

Mr. Toad wrote:Hmmm lets see.

Definition - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause

I think, it would qualify.

Not in my case.

What on earth is "Mickey's Philharagic?"

Owlzindabarn wrote:What on earth is "Mickey's Philharagic?"

A New 3-D attraction at Disney's Magic Kingdom theme park, located in Orlando, showcasing Disney classic moments with 3D animation...

Owlzindabarn wrote:What on earth is "Mickey's Philharagic?"

Shall I do the slapping, or would anyone else care to?

Mickey's Philharmagic is a 3D CGI attraction at the parks, If you do a search someone in one of the threads is a post which actually features the video of it, not very HQ though!

http://www.wdisneyw.co.uk/movies.html. You'll find a movie there...

You know, interestingly enough, Philarmagic is NOT CGI animated... Animated on computer, yes. CGI, nope...

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:You know, interestingly enough, Philarmagic is NOT CGI animated... Animated on computer, yes. CGI, nope...

CGI stands for Computer generated image/imagery

Mickey's philharmonic is an image generated on a computer, ergo CGI.

ichabod wrote:

DisneyFan 2000 wrote:You know, interestingly enough, Philarmagic is NOT CGI animated... Animated on computer, yes. CGI, nope...

CGI stands for Computer generated image/imagery

Mickey's philharmonic is an image generated on a computer, ergo CGI.

No no no... I remember reading on a Disney theme park forum that it wasn't acomplished by CGI technology... Although it did sound kinda strange...

Some parts were done by hand and then rendered in CG or something... at least that is what I read. Supposedly... no one could animate Ariel. And she is indeed the only character in the show that totally freaks me out. She has to be 2d... she's scary in CG.

Well don't get mad at me. Mr. Toad, in his original post, forgot the "M" and it came out "Mickey's Philaragic." I thought he was trying to say "Mickey's Paraplegic." Sheesh, was that a rejected cartoon idea from the 40s?

Then, Ichabod called it "Mickey's Philharmonic." Okay, call me confused. But I get it now.