DVDizzy Forum

Anyone else tired of feeling screwed over?

DisneyJedi wrote:Anyone else tired of feeling screwed over?

It's Disney. That's what they do.

Maybe, if it comes to fruition soon, the hand-drawn animators will be able to work on the Roger Rabbit sequel. Thinking about it, if Disney is in desperate need for another serious hit, this would be almost guaranteed to do well. In addition to the Roger Rabbit brand-name, you have Robert Zemeckis directing, Frank Marshall producing, Steven Spielberg and John Lasseter as possible executive producers, not to mention the likes of Andreas Deja, Eric Goldberg, Mark Henn, Randy Cartwright, possibly Glen Keane and other legendary animators working on it.

I will be shocked if Zemeckis doesn't make it his next project, especially if he wants to remove the sting of Mars Needs Moms and they are writing the screenplay as we speak.

So, even with Mort cancelled, it will be something great for the animators to work on, and much like the first one did in the '80s, it can bring hand-drawn animation back into the public's eye in a big way.

Or maybe I'm just fantasizing at this point.

estefan wrote:Maybe, if it comes to fruition soon, the hand-drawn animators will be able to work on the Roger Rabbit sequel. Thinking about it, if Disney is in desperate need for another serious hit, this would be almost guaranteed to do well. In addition to the Roger Rabbit brand-name, you have Robert Zemeckis directing, Frank Marshall producing, Steven Spielberg and John Lasseter as possible executive producers, not to mention the likes of Andreas Deja, Eric Goldberg, Mark Henn, Randy Cartwright, possibly Glen Keane and other legendary animators working on it.

I will be shocked if Zemeckis doesn't make it his next project, especially if he wants to remove the sting of Mars Needs Moms and they are writing the screenplay as we speak.

So, even with Mort cancelled, it will be something great for the animators to work on, and much like the first one did in the '80s, it can bring hand-drawn animation back into the public's eye in a big way.

Or maybe I'm just fantasizing at this point.

I'm with you on that! If Disney is still planning on doing the Roger Rabbit sequel, it NEEDS to be hand-drawn AND live-action. Not any of that motion-capture nonsense.

Well, Robert Zemeckis said a while ago that it will be in the same style as the first Roger Rabbit.

I think the only important person behind the first one who probably won't come back is Richard Williams, who appears to be off doing his own thing.

Honestly, this movie DOES need to happen, to better represent cartoon characters instead of making them modern, if you know what I mean.

estefan wrote:Maybe, if it comes to fruition soon, the hand-drawn animators will be able to work on the Roger Rabbit sequel. Thinking about it, if Disney is in desperate need for another serious hit, this would be almost guaranteed to do well. In addition to the Roger Rabbit brand-name, you have Robert Zemeckis directing, Frank Marshall producing, Steven Spielberg and John Lasseter as possible executive producers, not to mention the likes of Andreas Deja, Eric Goldberg, Mark Henn, Randy Cartwright, possibly Glen Keane and other legendary animators working on it.

I will be shocked if Zemeckis doesn't make it his next project, especially if he wants to remove the sting of Mars Needs Moms and they are writing the screenplay as we speak.

So, even with Mort cancelled, it will be something great for the animators to work on, and much like the first one did in the '80s, it can bring hand-drawn animation back into the public's eye in a big way.

Or maybe I'm just fantasizing at this point.

Dream come true right there. Especially since the new generation of artists is really kind of starting off and will be taking over for the likes of Glen Keane, Eric Goldberg, etc, in the next ten years or so... just like it was with the original Roger Rabbit. That, and the fact that I will be done with school and let loose into the industry in a year and half

A boy can dream, right??

PatrickvD wrote:And who decides what is classic-like? .... You?

Lady and the Tramp, The Lion King, are more classic than something like the history-twisting Discworld series, or Lilo & Stitch for that matter, even Dumbo is more classic than Lilo & Stitch.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:Again, violent and bad? This is just starting to get pathetic now, Lilo & Stitch is not a violent film.

It was not as violent as an R-rated movie, but it had a kind of explosive shooting violence not seen before in Disney or suited for Disney. I already talked about it on other threads, here is not the place.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote:Musker and Clements...are more ingrained in the history of Disney animation than you or I could ever hope to be so saying "they just do what they want" does a disservice to both's huge contribution to the company. Neither are "doing what they want", their success has earned them the right to work on any projects they wish to.

They didn't just do what they wanted before. It is only now that they do. Treaure Planet was a personal project that Michael Eisner said he would only let them do when they proved themselves. Along with Treasure Planet, the peculiar number of films which all had sci-fi subjects was the people at Disney feeding their own sci-fi interest and not the interest of making movies that fit Disney.

”DisneyAnimation88 wrote:

DisneyDuster wrote:Hunchback is a classic of literature, just like Jungle Book, Alice, Peter, mythology and fairy tales, hence it's acceptance as that's what Disney did before. Discworld is not any of those.

Discworld could be seen as a modern classic of literature. I don't know how appreciated and well-known he is in America but here in Britain, Terry Pratchett is a highly respected and admired authour and the Discworld series has been very successful. Out of interest, have you read Mort?

I haven't read Mort, just The Color of Magic and then looked though a lot of his other books and movies. He may be a modern classic maker, but his books aren't the same kind of classics as something like The Wizard of Oz, Bambi, or fairy tales. He twists and makes fun of lots of things, even history by saying Shakespear got his inspiration from Discworld characters for one. It's just it's own Discworld thing, not a Disney thing.

LySs wrote:And Aladdin and Hunchback didn't reference religion? Plus Neverland was a fictional world that had "Redskins" which are obviously American Indians.

I was talking about twisting and making fun in their references. For instance, putting his Death character among the Four Horseman, if they're even the real horseman or a made up version. And the world being on a turtle on elephants is from religion. Those are completely different from the kind of references Disney movies make where they just talk about religion as a real issue!

LySs wrote:Except Mort is the first book that focuses on the character Death and introduces the character Mort to the readers.

This makes it less bad, so maybe this one is okay.

LySs wrote:Walt Disney said so HIMSELF that Chernabog was actually Satan.

While officially a pagan god, it should also be noted that Chernabog might have originally been intended to be Satan: when "Night on Bald Mountain" appeared on the original Wonderful World of Disney, Walt Disney referred to Chernabog as "Satan himself."

Also, I haven't seen the film, but doesn't Darby O'Gill and the Little People have a dullahan that carries souls over to the land of the dead?

Disney was probably using hyberbole to say Chernabog was Satan. Otherwise why would he be named Chernabog instead of Satan? He is the name and shape of a Slavic folklore god, just like that dullahan is from folklore. And in any case, neither of these were major characters!

LySs wrote:Something that is considered "UnDisney" to one person can feel "Disney-ish" to another. See, that's the great thing about movies, they leave different impressions on different people. If we all felt the same about a movie, it would get boring and we wouldn't have anything to discuss or debate about now, would we?

Well, everyone at Disney should all discuss to themselves what projects and ideas sound Disney, and they all vote on whether Disney should do it or not. But I think that none of you really feel Discworld fits Disney very well, it’s just I was the first to point it out.

LySs wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: And Treasure Planet would have been very Disney if it weren't for the "Planet" part and the big sci-fi twist.

Disney doesn't do sci-fi? There's a whole park dedicated to space and science-fiction called Tomorrowland. Plus it's not like Disney hasn't taken a classic and added a different element to it. Robin Hood was done with furries instead of humans, and Oliver and Co. is basically Oliver Twist with a modern day New York City element with a cat and dogs.

The parks are something different. And there weren’t aliens and the vast extent of scif-fi that Atlantis, Chicken Little, or Lilo & Stitch went to, they never had that kind of sci-fi stuff at Disney until Walt died. Robin Hood is actually something I can’t believe they did, but at least talking animals feel Disney. Oliver & Company is also something I almost have a problem with, but it is like a whole new story. If Treasure Planet didn’t use the same names as the book, and was a little more different from the story like Oliver & Company was, I may have been more okay with it. The reason is because in the past, Walt did the stories more traditionally with none of those setting/species changes.

LySs wrote:I honestly don't see what's so bad about Lilo & Stitch. When Walt Disney first created Mickey Mouse, he was originally intended to be a mischievous troublemaker. Stitch being a violent selfish creature who learns how to love and be kind to others could be compared to the Beast, who was also cruel, selfish, and violent toward others, but learned to love as well. The only difference is that Stitch was a troublemaking alien with guns who befriended a little girl, and the Beast was a secluded cursed prince who fell in love and learned not to judge others.

Dude, I’m sorry but, it’s as plain as the fact that Stitch is not the very same as those characters. He is not just mischievous, but an engineered, much more violent, evil experiment that uses alien curses words and destroys almost anything in his path, and is, well, an alien, and he just changes to good in like the end. If only they Disneyfied him a bit more, gave more glimpses of his soul before his change, made him less violent and cursing.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I was actually thinking of even things like Lady and the Tramp when I said Disney adapts classic stories. I mean they adapt stories that are classic-like.

Oh, fuck... here we go again! Let it go, dude! You *always* do this: you say something that makes no sense, ten people call you out on it, then you say you actually meant something different and the whole discussion starts over again. But the point is: you didn't mean something different. You didn't mean "classic-like". You meant it like you said it the first time: "classics". And now that is has been pointed out how ridiculous that was, rather than admitting it, you make up a new addition to your original argument to hide behind.

How do I know all this? Like I said: because you always do this. Always, always, always. You cannot and will not admit that your own, personal, nostalgia-driven, fact-less vision of 'Disney' is *just* your opinion. You think it is fact and that we are all too fucking stupid to understand your facts. Well, guess what? We're not! Stop treating us like idiots!

Goliath, you and I need to talk. I thought we had an understanding, but once again your saying these kinds of things that put me down. So I realized you said them because you are angry, and I tried to figure out why.

If it’s because of what I say about Lilo & Stitch, look, there is nothing wrong with you liking a movie that may have some things that are a little un-Disney. You don’t like everything Disney does, some of their most iconic Disneyish films or characters, so it should not be a big problem to admit Stitch is rather un-Disney. You can still like him. I like to think he has a soul even if they fail to mention it.

But if you’re mad because you think I’m constantly changing my stances because you are tired of me never backing down on my opinions or always “winning” or something, well I’m not “winning” or changing myself. Look, talking about what I tend to talk about is hard because you’re right, it’s not able to be fact proven, because it’s about feelings, it’s about the spirit of the films more than the physical things that are more easy to analyze. Disney is not just high quality family entertainment and animation because lots of animations and movie studios do that, too, so figuring out exactly how to describe what Disney is is very hard and maybe even impossible. But you just dismissing everything I say with a post like that is not helping. The best I can do is say something feels un-Disney because what Disney is is a feeling after all. The reason we love movies and things are usually because of what they feel like. And I try to describe it as best I can, and if people don’t get what I mean, I have to try to be more specific or explain it another way, which is what you judge as me changing my words or whatever.

And after all this, maybe Disney could Disneyfy Discworld and Joe Jump enough to expand the kinds of films they make but miraculously, magically, still make them what we call the Disney kind of films. But I’ll still talk about how I feel, when I feel a little uneasy about it, and why. You know, just to think about what they are doing and whether they should or not.

And I never try to talk down to any of you. The only option I can think of when you don’t get me is that, well, you don’t get me! I think by now you should realize, as I explained even in this post, why I may be hard to understand!

But if you’re mad because you think I’m constantly changing my stances because you are tired of me never backing down on my opinions or always “winning” or something, well I’m not “winning” or changing myself.

...Sorry, couldn't resist.

Please tell me I'm not the only one that first thought this.

He is not just mischievous, but an engineered, much more violent, evil experiment that uses alien curses words and destroys almost anything in his path, and is, well, an alien, and he just changes to good in like the end.

I still don't see any problem in that. If anything, it makes Stitch a more interesting character because of it. There's no such thing as Disneyfication. I loved Lilo & Stitch for breaking out of the mold and experiment with a new theme and characters. It shows that Disney can still use the same "themes" they use in their movies, but with different genres, whether it's about a creature who's "violent" or not. Seeing a character destroy something is not violent if it's played for comical effect. Hell, I remember thinking Lilo was the more violent one for punching another girl in the face!

There's no such thing as a Disney movie having to take place in a specific setting to be considered "Disney". In the end, if a movie is made by Disney, then that's Disney.

I'm a Disney fan primarily because of the animation, music and the way they tell a story, but it's always interesting to see them try something new and different.

Disney Duster wrote:

PatrickvD wrote:And who decides what is classic-like? .... You?

Lady and the Tramp, The Lion King, are more classic than something like the history-twisting Discworld series, or Lilo & Stitch for that matter, even Dumbo is more classic than Lilo & Stitch.

That's not an answer to my question.

DisneyDuster wrote:Disney was probably using hyberbole to say Chernabog was Satan. Otherwise why would he be named Chernabog instead of Satan? He is the name and shape of a Slavic folklore god, just like that dullahan is from folklore. And in any case, neither of these were major characters

This is what is so infuriatingly frustrating about you; someone has presented perfectly good evidence to back up what they said and you dismiss it because it disproves your argument. How do you know it was hyperbolic? And Chernabog was a major character in Fantasia and he certainly is one of the most memorable characters Disney has ever created.

DisneyDuster wrote:They didn't just do what they wanted before. It is only now that they do. Treaure Planet was a personal project that Michael Eisner said he would only let them do when they proved themselves. Along with Treasure Planet, the peculiar number of films which all had sci-fi subjects was the people at Disney feeding their own sci-fi interest and not the interest of making movies that fit Disney.

No. They wanted to do Treasure Planet before they ever directed Little Mermaid, Aladdin or Hercules but Katzenberg was the one who said no. Then, when he formed DreamWorks he was desperate to get Clements and Musker to follow him but they remained loyal to Disney. Tom Schumacher and Roy Disney were very interested in their pitch for Treasure Planet so they convinced Eisner to let them make it. Treasure Planet was a personal project but by the time Eisner became involved in animation after Katzenberg had left, Clements and Musker had already directed Little Mermaid and Aladdin so I don't understand why they would need to prove themselves after that success. By the "sci-fi subjects", I presume your alluding to Atlantis and Lilo & Stitch? Again, Atlantis was a personal project for Kirk Wise and Gary Trousdale after BATB and HOTD. Chris Sanders first created Stitch in the 1980's and worked on the story for over ten years before it was made, again it was a personal project. So how is that Disney feeding their own interest in science-fiction? No one forced Disney to make those personal projects into films so for me, your argument just doesn't make sense.

DisneyDuster wrote:Well, everyone at Disney should all discuss to themselves what projects and ideas sound Disney, and they all vote on whether Disney should do it or not. But I think that none of you really feel Discworld fits Disney very well, it’s just I was the first to point it out.

First of all, the last part. How can you say that when so many people have openly questioned you? Having actually read the book, I personally think Mort would make a very interesting Disney film so in my case, what you've said is completely untrue. Don't delude yourself into believing that you speak for how the rest of us really feel because, trust me, that's not true.

The way things work, as I understand it, is that potential directors pitch their idea to John Lasseter and the senior members of the animation staff and get suggestions of how to make the idea work as a film. If, after a while the project still isn't good enough, it simply doesn't get made. So it's actually not very different to what you suggest, except without the "is it Disney enough?" part.

DisneyDuster wrote:Oliver & Company is also something I almost have a problem with, but it is like a whole new story. If Treasure Planet didn’t use the same names as the book, and was a little more different from the story like Oliver & Company was, I may have been more okay with it.

The only original names in Treasure Planet are Jim Hawkins, John Silver and Billy Bones. The only original names in Oliver & Company are Oliver, Dodger, Fagin and Sykes. So what significance do names have? Treasure Planet is set in space with a cast of mostly alien characters and the storys most iconic character has been turned into a cyborg; how much more different from Treasure Island do you want it to be?

DisneyDuster wrote:The parks are something different. And there weren’t aliens and the vast extent of scif-fi that Atlantis, Chicken Little, or Lilo & Stitch went to, they never had that kind of sci-fi stuff at Disney until Walt died.

Again, what difference does that make? Just because Walt never had the chance to make them, who's to say that he wouldn't have?

DisneyDuster wrote:Dude, I’m sorry but, it’s as plain as the fact that Stitch is not the very same as those characters. He is not just mischievous, but an engineered, much more violent, evil experiment that uses alien curses words and destroys almost anything in his path, and is, well, an alien, and he just changes to good in like the end. If only they Disneyfied him a bit more, gave more glimpses of his soul before his change, made him less violent and cursing.

WHAT? . The whole point of the story is Stitch finding a family and changing his ways. He doesn't kill anyone, he doesn't actually hurt anyone, he swears in a MADE-UP LANGUAGE!! Why, why, why do you take things so seriously? Stitch is a fun, perfectly harmless character who youngsters love. If you don't, fine, but he is not violent or unsuitable as a Disney character in any way, that to me is "plain as fact".

I like how Duster really doesn't answer people's questions like the example with PatrickDV. And like Disneyanimation88 said, if someone has presented perfectly good evidence to back up what they said, Duster dismiss it because it disproves his argument rather than admitting it or find some real evident reasoning to backing his claim.


i'm too lazy atm to respond to all his stuff.

Blah, blah, Disney essence. Blah, blah, Walt says this. Blah, blah, classics. Blah, blah, Stitch is an evil psychopath worse than nuclear war. Blah, blah, actually. Blah, blah, classics. Blah, blah, actually. Blah, blah, Walt says that. Blah, blah, Disney essence.

You know, I think I've seen this scenario many times before.

Wonderlicious wrote:Stitch is an evil psychopath worse than nuclear war.

What Jumba wanted. He took the disappointment of Stitch turning semi-saint well.

Seriously, does this look like the face of a violent, evil creature?



...which I actually now really really want.

Along with everything else on these sites
http://pink-choco-box--disney-sega.blog ... bel/Stitch
http://marshmellow-fashion-toys.blogspot.com/

Anyway, I'm probably going off-topic now so don't mind me. Carry on.

He looks like Jabba the Hut's baby.

enigmawing wrote:

Awww, too cute! I need to see that movie again. It's been years. (Of course, the subtitle's great, too. )

So, Mort may have been cancelled? Please no. I want this movie. Please make Mort and make it so good that Disney Duster will have to completely abandon his creed and will silence forever the endless debate about the essence of Disney.

Speaking of which, LySs: I loved your post. But there's one thing I'd like to add. 101 Dalmations was published in novel form, but before that it was published as a serial called "The Great Dog Robbery" in the magazine Woman's Day. I think that should make it even less classic.

Disney Duster wrote:But I think that none of you really feel Discworld fits Disney very well, it’s just I was the first to point it out.

I want to nominate this quote to be in Escapay's signature as a "WTF-moment".

Duster, I just LOVE how all of your so-called 'arguments' were totally DESTROYED by LySs and yet you still persist. That takes some balls! Like, when confronted with a quote by Walt Disney himself, the deity you worship, about Chernabog being Satan, you know how to spin it in such a way that you can still claim to be right. "Well, he was probably hyperbole" you say. There's no indication he was. "But he wasn't a major character" you say. But that wasn't your original argument and is thus totally moot!

Duster, when confronted with sci-fi in the parks, you say "they don't count". Even though they have the Disney-name on them. Even though they were initiated by Walt Disney himself! Just say "they don't count" and suddenly you don't have to adress the multiple inconsistencies in your reasoning anymore! Like saying that Oliver & Company was a total and complete twist on the Charles Dickens novel, but because *that one* is a beloved nostalgic piece to you (and that's the one and only reason) you say that it's "not that bad". You don't explain why and you feel you don't have to, because "not that bad" has covered it all.

Duster, the one and only reason you criticize 'Mort' and Rapunzel is, like I pointed out already, the fact that they're *new* Disney projects. They don't have the nostalgic factor to them. That's why you oppose them. Otherwise you wouldn't criticize Death as a character, when you're perfectly okay with Hades. You tried to reason that away, but it didn't ring true. Just saying "that's different" doesn't *make* it different. Come on, admit it, finally, so we can all go on and realize that your 'arguments' have no substance to them. They're based on blind nostalgia.

Duster, every FACT opposite to your beliefs you try to reason away with non-arguments. I demonstrated that in the paragraphs above. What you do, is cognitive dissonance. Have you ever heard of that term? It happens in political conversation a lot, as well. It means that, when presented with a verifiable fact that runs counter to your unsupported beliefs, your mind finds a way to 'reason away' and thus discredit the verifiable fact. That's what you're doing all the time, and why any discussion with you is fruitless.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink....

oh and speaking of Horses and Death I found this image...




Anyway.....Duster isn't going to change his mind or give his blessing so I think it's best we all call it a draw and move on...don't make me go blah blah like Wonderlicious did a few posts up....

I was thinking....what about a Disneyfied version of Moby Dick? Or how about The Princess and the Pea....or the Snow Queen sounds good...