Disney's Mort

[Super Aurora]

I was thinking....what about a Disneyfied version of Moby Dick?

I heard during the Disney renaissance era, Moby Dick was one of the few proposed idea but scrapped along with Sinbad( Katzenburg took and became Dreamwork production), Odyssey(replace by Hercules) and Swan Lake(Richard Rich took and made).

They probably scrapped it because Disney couldn't handle awesomeness that is Moby Dick and realize they could never reach such an extraordinaire caliber. Moby Dick stands in the heavens above.

[ajmrowland]

He looks like Jabba the Hut's baby.

I dont know.

[Wonderlicious]

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...

Well, a Moby Dick musical already exists, so, like, you know...

We also know that "The Snow Queen" has been jumping in and out of development since who-know's-when; it could come back for a few months, then go back in. And while I'm sure somebody at Disney sometime must have at least briefly suggested "The Princess and the Pea", I honestly don't think it's that suitable a story for adaptation into animated feature. There isn't particularly much to stretch into a feature-length film as it stands. Furthermore, the only real fantastic element is the idea of a princess being sensitive enough to feel a pea through twenty mattresses, which doesn't cry "animate me" in the way, say, a beastly prince, a talking puppet or a girl with fifty feet of hair would do. Of course, you could expand it, or add some fantastical elements that would really be better suited to animation, but then there's the general risk of losing the actual tone of the original, which is light and farcical as opposed to epic and moving. I honestly think people only sometimes say that "The Princess and the Pea" should be made as it's a story involving a princess.

[BelleGirl]

I think there are plenty of Andersen fairy tales that are better suited for adaptation than "Princess and the Pea". What about "The tinderbox" (also includes a princess!), "Seven swans', "The red shoes"? (though it is a cruel story). Here's also still hoping for "The snow queen".

[UmbrellaFish]

"Seven swans',

I have always adored this story. I would love to see Disney tackle it.

[KubrickFan]

Disney needs to do something differently, to really attract audiences. What some would call "Classic Disney", others would call "the same old stuff". I haven't read any Discworld novels, so I have no idea if the story could be made into something the entire family would enjoy, but if they only stick to turning fairytales into musicals, we'll never know.

[Disney Duster]

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.

Yes it was. You were supposed to tell from that that everyone can tell what a classic is by that statement, meaning "who decides what is classic-like" is really that anyone can tell what is classic-like, when looking at how easily I pointed it out.

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.

It's not that Stitch is just plain violent. It's that he is violent in a way that was never in Disney films before, especially in their heroes. Lilo herself was a little too weird and violent, too. If Lilo and Stitch were just "weirdness and violence families can handle" that is not the same as "weirdness and violence that fits Disney". I can't believe you don't believe in Disneyfication, why does Disney still exist today if they are not trying to make all their movies Disneyfied? Why do they keep the name Disney if the name "Disney" means nothing that other animation studios can't do, too? The name "Disney" stands for a kind of family film, a Disneyfied family film.

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.

I was saying it was possible that Walt was using hyberbole, it sounds like he was using hyberbole to me. I am saying it does not make sense for Walt and everyone to call Chernabog, well, Chernabog, if he is actually Satan. If Walt intended him to be Satan, why isn't his name Satan or some other name that actually means Satan? So it is for this reason that it just makes sense to me that he was using hyberbole.

Also, you are using the term "major character" as liberally as people call Fantasia a "film". It's not a film with a narrative and talking characters. Chernabog is more like a concept. If I'm still not explaining it well, it's as simple as: there are differences between Chernabog the Slavic folklore we're-not-sure-what-he-is creature that doesn't talk in a scene in a film which is just animation set to music, and Death, the Grim Reeper who is death incarnate who talks and is much more like an actual character, in a narrative.

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.

Actually, all of this supports what I was talking about. All of these guys wanted to do personal projects for Disney, and for some reason all these guys wanted to do Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi is known to be liked by more men than women). But the heads at the studio didn't let them do it until they proved themselves by making films for the studio, for Disney, instead of for their own personal interests. And look, all of these personal interest films were not nearly as big successes or as Disney-feeling as the films they did more for Disney than for their own sci-fi interests! Lilo & Stitch was slightly successful but not as successful as the past less-personal more-Disney films.

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.

You say you think Mort would make an interesting Disney film. Yea, it would be interesting to see Disney do something that sounds rather un-Disney. The subject has to fit Disney. Also, they should add that "Is it Disney enough?" question to each project and vote on it or at least talk about 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?

You don't understand, what I meant was Oliver & Company was treated as a different, new story. For instance, there's no abusive boyfriend that also likes to claim little Oliver was stealing. But Treasure Planet, at least from what I know, took exactly the same Treasure Planet storyline and just set it in a different place. It's a twist on the classic story, as opposed to Oliver & Company which was like a brand new story. But I didn't see Treasure Planet, so I may be wrong, I am perfectly open to that possibility, but if you have seen it, you could tell me.

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?

Walt had a whole lifetime of making films. If in those films he didn't make anything like those kinds of sci-fi films, than those kinds of sci-fi films are not Disney kind of films. In Disney's lifetime he set the examples of how Disney films should be. Now, Atlantis is something I'm okay with because of 2,000 Leagues Under the Sea. But you see, that's about as Disney sci-fi as it gets.

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 already explained this one to Lyss above, so please read that, but basically, it's the way he was violent, even if he didn't go as far to kill anyone. He had an un-Disney kind of violence, he gave an un-Disney feeling. I don't see how he could really feel Disney to you, I am merely going to have to trust your word, if that's truly how you feel.

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.

On the contrary, that is similar to where Lady and the Tramp came from. But I will admit that since Disney saw the classicness in that and turned it into a classic, maybe the same could happen to Mort. I am just not sure if there is classicness in Mort because I know how very un-Disney Discworld is and something like talking dogs kissing or escaping a murderous villain is more classic and more Disney than Death being a character and lots of other things in Discworld.

Goliath, you keep getting what I say wrong, you keep skewing what I say into something different and negative, you don't even get my words right, like I never said the words "not that bad". You keep making up things that I mean when I really mean something different. All I can tell you is to read everything I wrote this time above and maybe you'll get it this time, and these two things:

The parks are different from the animated films. That right there is plain fact, they are seperate things. But more importantly, before Walt Disney died, the kind of sci-fi they did in the parks was not the kind of sci-fi they did in things like Treasure Planet and Lilo & Stitch, so it may be un-Disney sci-fi.

Next, I have heard of cognitive dissonance, but I thought it was when you have seemingly opposing ideas in your head. Turns out that more or less is what it is, and then you just spun your own interpretation of what it is and claim I'm using that. Well first off, cognitive dissonance is a theory, so sure it could be possible but it just as well could not be possible either, and finally, no, that's not what I'm doing. Any time where someone's information has made me think Mort could be done at Disney, I have acknowledged it, such as thinking how Mort is the first book that introduces the characters we would focus on in the film.

Disney needs to do something differently, to really attract audiences. What some would call "Classic Disney", others would call "the same old stuff". I haven't read any Discworld novels, so I have no idea if the story could be made into something the entire family would enjoy, but if they only stick to turning fairytales into musicals, we'll never know.

Yea, or what some people would call just "Disney" others would call "the same old stuff". How far can they stray from "Classic Disney" before it's not "Disney" at all?! They aren't just films the entire family would enjoy, and they aren't just fairy tales either (because fairy tales and what the whole family would enjoy aren't the same either). Disney is more than that, because other studios do films for the whole family and fairy tales, too. Disney is something else. Can Mort fit that something else? I just don't know...

If Disney were to do Mort, I think they would have to really get rid of a lot of references to history and religion and other things, but the very world they live in, Discworld, is on four elephants on a turtle, which right away references Inidan religions! It's that Disworld twisting reference humour which is so un-Disney...

[PatrickvD]

That's not an answer to my question.

Yes it was. You were supposed to tell from that that everyone can tell what a classic is by that statement, meaning who decides what is classic-like" is really most people can tell, when looking at how easily I pointed it out.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Also, you are using the term "major character" as liberally as people call Fantasia a "movie". It's not a movie with a narrative and talking characters. Chernabog is more like a concept.

To me, you're just twisting history to try and back up your argument again. Fantasia is a film made up of different segments and storylines. There aren't any voices because it's set to classical music. Chernabog is as major a character in the film as Mickey Mouse or Yen Sid or Ben Ali Gator or any of the others. Not only that, he's one of Disney's most classic and iconic characters, animated by the genius of Bill Tytla. Considering Fantasia was perhaps Walt Disney's most ambitious and beloved film of his lifetime, I'm not making any statement liberally here.

Actually, all of this supports what I was talking about. All of these guys wanted to do personal projects for Disney, and for some reason all these guys wanted to do Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi is known to be liked by more men than women). But the heads at the studio didn't let them do it until they proved themselves by making films for the studio, for Disney, instead of for their own personal interests. And look, all of these personal interest films were not nearly as big successes or as Disney-feeling as the films they did more for Disney than for their own sci-fi interests! Lilo & Stitch was slightly successful but not as successful as the past less-personal more-Disney films.

So if it's a personal project, it's a bad film that examplifies the selfishness of the director(s)? Fantasia was perhaps Walt Disney's most personal project and that failed so what's the difference? I know you're going to rewrite history again and say Walt's personal project was Snow White or Cinderella or something but Clements and Musker, Wise and Trousdale and Sanders didn't set out to make films that would fail, it's pretty common knowledge that studio politics had a detrimental effect on almost all of the films made around that time. Also Lilo & Stitch was far more than "slightly successful" hence the multiple spin-offs, merchandise and theme park attraction.

You say you think Mort would make an interesting Disney film. Yea, it would be interesting to see Disney do something rather un-Disney. The subject has to fit Disney. Also, they should add that "Is it Disney enough?" question to each project and vote on it or at least talk about it.

As many people have told you before many, many, many times, Disney rarely, if ever make a film adaptation that it completely true to the source material. Anything "un-Disney" would have been changed, as in dozens of fairy tales and novels that they've adapted. Before you make a judgement, why not read Mort?

But I didn't see Treasure Planet, so I may be wrong, I am perfectly open to that possibility, but if you have seen it, you could tell me.

Treasure Planet is very similar to Treasure Island but that isn't because of some obsession Disney had with sci-fi in the late 1990's/early 2000's. Clements and Musker pitched what they called "Treasure Island in space" in the early 1980's. And I would recommend you see it as it is certainly one of Disney's most underrated films of recent years.

basically, the way he was violent, even if he didn't go as far to kill anyone, he had an un-Disney kind of violence, he gave an un-Disney feeling. I don't see how he could really feel Disney to you, I am merely going to have to trust your word if that's truly how you feel.

That is how I feel and I really can't help but think that you should rewatch the film because he isn't nearly as bad as you seem to think. If he were "un-Disney" in any way, why would the company market and merchandise him to the extent that they have?

The parks are different from the animated films. That right there is plain fact, they are seperate things. But more importantly, before Walt Disney died, the kind of sci-fi they did was not the kind in things like Treasure Planet and Lilo & Stitch, so it may be un-Disney sci-fi.

Walt Disney died in 1966, long before films like Star Wars and Alien that changed the genre of sci-fi. Just because he didn't do something, I wouldn't predict that he wouldn't have done it. He did have interest in science and space as throught the 1950's and 60's he employed several scientists to consult on shorts and potential films, like those made by Ward Kimball. Sci-fi has also featured prominently in the theme parks in rides like Star Tours and Alien Encounter which were around long before Treasure Planet and Lilo & Stitch.

[Super Aurora]

Yes it was. You were supposed to tell from that that everyone can tell what a classic is by that statement, meaning who decides what is classic-like" is really most people can tell, when looking at how easily I pointed it out.

Today isn't Friday though....

[Duckburger]

[PatrickvD]

Today isn't Friday though....

Today is tuesday, but wednesday comes afterwuhurds

[Super Aurora]

[ajmrowland]

That's not an answer to my question.

Yes it was. You were supposed to tell from that that everyone can tell what a classic is by that statement, meaning "who decides what is classic-like" is really that anyone can tell what is classic-like, when looking at how easily I pointed it out.

Classic is an opinion. You said what you think were classics when the question was similar to a "who died and put you in charge" by asking you if Disney appointed you to decide what the *official* classics are.

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.

It's not that Stitch is just plain violent. It's that he is violent in a way that was never in Disney films before, especially in their heroes. Lilo herself was a little too weird and violent, too. If Lilo and Stitch were just "weirdness and violence families can handle" that is not the same as "weirdness and violence that fits Disney". I can't believe you don't believe in Disneyfication, why does Disney still exist today if they are not trying to make all their movies Disneyfied? Why do they keep the name Disney if the name "Disney" means nothing that other animation studios can't do, too? The name "Disney" stands for a kind of family film, a Disneyfied family film.

Right. Cuz rather than stabbing people, he just shoots plasma guns. Sure, he chucks a car and breaks a few walls but we're rooting for him by then. Also, when factoring live action films into the equation, tons of Disney characters were quite as violent, if not moreso. For animation, the Beast is a very violent character much of the time, yet he goes through a similar inner-transformation as stitch. And yet again, you just change your claim. You said earlier that you didnt like Stitch because he's violent. now you say it's because he's a different type of violent. Dont even get started on Lilo. She's weird and is desensitized to a lot of violent thoughts, but a *lot* of good people in reality were like Lilo as children. Not every little is the typical Barbie and Makeup type we always see on tv. you have tomboys, delinquents, and cynics. You also have child actresses who make their careers off of doing more "adult" films by playing horror movie villains or just plain realistic children(note that Deveigh Chase was among the former). Lilo just fits into the category of kids who dont fit into any category.

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.

I was saying it was possible that Walt was using hyberbole, it sounds like he was using hyberbole to me. I am saying it does not make sense for Walt and everyone to call Chernabog, well, Chernabog, if he is actually Satan. If Walt intended him to be Satan, why isn't his name Satan or some other name that actually means Satan? So it is for this reason that it just makes sense to me that he was using hyberbole.

There is no actuality. It sounds more like he was saying "He's practically Satan" or "He's in the same league as the Devil". In other words, Walt was using Satan as an example to simplify/eliminate the need to explain Chernabog's character. Actually, Chernabog *is* the Slavic God of Evil, so he was very much on the money in saying that he's Satan. He's a Slavic Satan.

Also, you are using the term "major character" as liberally as people call Fantasia a "film". It's not a film with a narrative and talking characters.

Motion Picture
a. motion pictures collectively.
b. the motion-picture industry, or its productions, operations, etc.
c. motion pictures, as a genre of art or entertainment: experimental film.

Strange. There's nothing about there being a need for a narrative in there.

Chernabog is more like a concept. If I'm still not explaining it well, it's as simple as: there are differences between Chernabog the Slavic folklore we're-not-sure-what-he-is creature that doesn't talk in a scene in a film which is just animation set to music, and Death, the Grim Reeper who is death incarnate who talks and is much more like an actual character, in a narrative.

Exactly. One's just doing his job, and the other wants to wreak chaos. They're polar opposites. And to call Fantasia jus animation set to music is an insult to Walt Disney himself, for that was probably the film he was most proud of, minus the poor performance in theaters.

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.

Actually, all of this supports what I was talking about. All of these guys wanted to do personal projects for Disney, and for some reason all these guys wanted to do Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi is known to be liked by more men than women). But the heads at the studio didn't let them do it until they proved themselves by making films for the studio, for Disney, instead of for their own personal interests. And look, all of these personal interest films were not nearly as big successes or as Disney-feeling as the films they did more for Disney than for their own sci-fi interests! Lilo & Stitch was slightly successful but not as successful as the past less-personal more-Disney films.

Wait, when did Chris Sanders actually prove himself a talented filmmaker before L&S? Sure he worked in Story before, but he never directed. Neither did Dean Deblois. They were both essentially "proving" themselves with Stitch. Not sure about Mark Dindal cuz Emperor's New Groove could've easily been a personal project based on it's Chuck Jones style. And Lilo and Stitch was very succesful. Few Disney succeses spawned 3 DTVs and a TV series.

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.

You say you think Mort would make an interesting Disney film. Yea, it would be interesting to see Disney do something that sounds rather un-Disney. The subject has to fit Disney. Also, they should add that "Is it Disney enough?" question to each project and vote on it or at least talk about it.

Disney himself didnt want his own Disney movies to fit Disney. Walt spent his first five productions constantly changing the formula and making each of those films feel unique from other Disney films. You claim that Disney Ideally should make films that feel "Disney-like" when in fact that pretty much makes them all feel stale very quickly in the 21st century. Tangled and PatF felt a little stale. True it gives Disney an Identity, but they can still keep that identity while making what you would call "un-disney" movies. Studio Ghibli does that all the time. Their formula is very small in comparison to (insert American studio here).

[quotes]

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?

You don't understand, what I meant was Oliver & Company was treated as a different, new story. For instance, there's no abusive boyfriend that also likes to claim little Oliver was stealing. But Treasure Planet, at least from what I know, took exactly the same Treasure Planet storyline and just set it in a different place. It's a twist on the classic story, as opposed to Oliver & Company which was like a brand new story. But I didn't see Treasure Planet, so I may be wrong, I am perfectly open to that possibility, but if you have seen it, you could tell me.[/quote]Wow, the removal of a side-character definitely changes the whole story

Oliver and Company was still very, very much the same Dickens tale.

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?

Walt had a whole lifetime of making films. If in those films he didn't make anything like those kinds of sci-fi films, than those kinds of sci-fi films are not Disney kind of films. In Disney's lifetime he set the examples of how Disney films should be. Now, Atlantis is something I'm okay with because of 2,000 Leagues Under the Sea. But you see, that's about as Disney sci-fi as it gets.

In the 1940s, there hardly was a "Disney kind of film" and Sci-Fi wasnt really on film that much at all. And you still forgot "Tomorrowland" and half of the Walt's TV show talked about things like Science Fiction as well.

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 already explained this one to Lyss above, so please read that, but basically, it's the way he was violent, even if he didn't go as far to kill anyone. He had an un-Disney kind of violence, he gave an un-Disney feeling. I don't see how he could really feel Disney to you, I am merely going to have to trust your word, if that's truly how you feel.

I already debunked this one above.

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.

On the contrary, that is similar to where Lady and the Tramp came from. But I will admit that since Disney saw the classicness in that and turned it into a classic, maybe the same could happen to Mort. I am just not sure if there is classicness in Mort because I know how very un-Disney Discworld is and something like talking dogs kissing or escaping a murderous villain is more classic and more Disney than Death being a character and lots of other things in Discworld.

again with such a definitive description of "classic". Classic is really just " so good that it remains very, very popular decades after being made". War of the Worlds is classic literature, yet it's completely different from A Christmas Carol, To Kill a Mockingbird and Tarzan of the Apes. The Outsiders could also be called a Classic. This classic formula in storytelling that you seem to be referring to is nonexistent.

The parks are different from the animated films. That right there is plain fact, they are seperate things. But more importantly, before Walt Disney died, the kind of sci-fi they did in the parks was not the kind of sci-fi they did in things like Treasure Planet and Lilo & Stitch, so it may be un-Disney sci-fi.

but the thing is Walt made those sci-fi things and they were a part of the Disney company. They still are. So even if Disney himself made it in the parks, it'd still be "un-Disney" in a film? Once again you misunderstand the very man whose thoughts you constantly claim to know.

Next, I have heard of cognitive dissonance, but I thought it was when you have seeminlgy opposing ideas in your head. Turns out that more or less is what it is, and then you just spun your own interpretation of what it is and claim I'm using that. Well first off, cognitive dissonance is a theory, so sure it could be possible but it just as well could not be possible either, and finally, no, that's not what I'm doing. Any time where someone's information has made me think Mort could be done at Disney, I have acknowledged it, such as thinking how Mort is the first book that introduces the characters we would focus on in the film.

cant comment.

Disney needs to do something differently, to really attract audiences. What some would call "Classic Disney", others would call "the same old stuff". I haven't read any Discworld novels, so I have no idea if the story could be made into something the entire family would enjoy, but if they only stick to turning fairytales into musicals, we'll never know.

Yea, or what some people would call just "Disney" others would call "the same old stuff". How far can they stray from "Classic Disney" before it's not "Disney" at all?! They aren't just films the entire family would enjoy, and they aren't just fairy tales either (because fairy tales and what the whole family would enjoy aren't the same either). Disney is more than that, because other studios do films for the whole family and fairy tales, too. Disney is something else. Can Mort fit that something else? I just don't know...

Much farther than you'd ever allow i'm sure. If they keep some things like act structure, a couple common moments here and there, it could still very much be a "Disney" film. The rest I have to say I said above.

If Disney were to do Mort, I think they would have to really get rid of a lot of references to history and religion and other things, but the very world they live in, Discworld, is on four elephants on a turtle, which right away references Inidan religions! It's that Disworld twisting reference humour which is so un-Disney...

Disney references all sorts of religions in several of their films. Maybe they'd have to play them out subtly, but they can still be there.

[LySs]

I can't believe you don't believe in Disneyfication, why does Disney still exist today if they are not trying to make all their movies Disneyfied? Why do they keep the name Disney if the name "Disney" means nothing that other animation studios can't do, too? The name "Disney" stands for a kind of family film, a Disneyfied family film.

Disney is "Disney" for the techniques the studio uses, and the love, magic, and creativity they put in to develop their movies which gives them their identity. Not so much what the movie itself is about.

Think of it this way. A painter named Sam could do several paintings based the themes of lets say... love, romance, sunny days, etc. Then years later, he'll start doing paintings that are full of violent, gruesome themes, or of the macabre.
Some critics might exclaim "that's not Sam! Sam doesn't do that! Sam's paintings are only based on love!"
But yet it was still by Sam. It was still created by his own hands, and he still put in his own techniques and style which gave his paintings his usual signature identity. All he changed, was the subject matter.

What makes a Disney movie "Disney" is how it's made and the way it's done, not by what it's about.

[estefan]

In a way, you can compare Disney to Steven Spielberg (and, not surprisingly, Disney was a huge influence on the bearded one). He's probably one of the most versatile directors out there, having done historical dramas, science-fiction, family films, adventure serials, thrillers, comedies, fantasy and action. Yet, even though many of these films are very different from each other, you can tell they are directed by Spielberg. However, you can not honestly say Minority Report is anything like Schindler's List or that Jaws is anything like E.T.

Disney is similar in the sense that they can try many different projects that are nothing alike, but you can tell that they are Disney productions. Lilo & Stitch may not be like Snow White, but it has the usual Disney trademarks, which cross over to it. Just like how Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade and E.T. both have the theme of the absentee father and involve a magical force with the power of healing and to an extent, both have to do with Jesus in some way. However, on the surface, the two films appear to be nothing alike.

And to add to that, if Spielberg's name is on the poster, the chances are very strong that you are going to watch a good film, much like when Disney makes an animated production.

[Super Aurora]

I can't believe you don't believe in Disneyfication, why does Disney still exist today if they are not trying to make all their movies Disneyfied? Why do they keep the name Disney if the name "Disney" means nothing that other animation studios can't do, too? The name "Disney" stands for a kind of family film, a Disneyfied family film.

Disney is "Disney" for the techniques the studio uses, and the love, magic, and creativity they put in to develop their movies which gives them their identity. Not so much what the movie itself is about.

Think of it this way. A painter named Sam could do several paintings based the themes of lets say... love, romance, sunny days, etc. Then years later, he'll start doing paintings that are full of violent, gruesome themes, or of the macabre.
Some critics might exclaim "that's not Sam! Sam doesn't do that! Sam's paintings are only based on love!"
But yet it was still by Sam. It was still created by his own hands, and he still put in his own techniques and style which gave his paintings his usual signature identity. All he changed, was the subject matter.

What makes a Disney movie "Disney" is how it's made and the way it's done, not by what it's about.

What's funny is that Duster is also arguing for that as well. Telling us how a Disney movie should be made like and "identity".

oh and

[Dream Huntress]

Alrighty then Duster, here I go:

Also, you are using the term "major character" as liberally as people call Fantasia a "movie". It's not a movie with a narrative and talking characters. Chernabog is more like a concept.

Okay, I agree that whole last segment of Fantasia is basically the concept of good versus evil, with Chernabog representing evil. He was more of an idea than an actual character. I don't agree with you saying Fantasia is not a movie, c'mon, that's an insult to the man himself, Walt Disney.

Actually, all of this supports what I was talking about. All of these guys wanted to do personal projects for Disney, and for some reason all these guys wanted to do Sci-Fi (Sci-Fi is known to be liked by more men than women). But the heads at the studio didn't let them do it until they proved themselves by making films for the studio, for Disney, instead of for their own personal interests. And look, all of these personal interest films were not nearly as big successes or as Disney-feeling as the films they did more for Disney than for their own sci-fi interests! Lilo & Stitch was slightly successful but not as successful as the past less-personal more-Disney films.

So your point is that personal stories are less succesful because they don't follow a studio wish or concept? No wonder Pixar has so many flops, oh wait...

But Treasure Planet, at least from what I know, took exactly the same Treasure Planet storyline and just set it in a different place. It's a twist on the classic story, as opposed to Oliver & Company which was like a brand new story. But I didn't see Treasure Planet, so I may be wrong, I am perfectly open to that possibility, but if you have seen it, you could tell me.

No, it's pretty much Treasure Island IN SPACE!!!

You have kind of a weird stance here, as if you somehow were ready to say which movies are classics and which aren't, and that's something that people discovers with time, just because something feels Disney it doesn't mean it's gonna be a classic. Time will tell.

And the whole thing of restricting them to do stuff that is strictly Disney can be contraproducent, that's one of the things that always bugged about the "The Princess and the Frog", as much as I like that movie, it feels so manufactured, that they went with the idea of "We did this in the past, we're gonna do it again, because it kinda worked in the past, even though animation today is a complete different beast, but hell, we're Disney, we have to Disneyfy it, everything will work out, I mean, it worked in the past".

A story has to be told in a way that it works, that can competently tell the story and connect with the audience, if you restrict them to do just what Disney works, well, they're never gonna get out of the pit they put themselves in. There's a reason why "Lilo & Stitch" was their only major hit until "Tangled": It was different, it was original, but above all it was a good and sincere story, and no amount Disneyfication can manufacture that.

[Jack Skellington]

Lol that video is so funny, esp the part where she's like "Which seat should I take" !!! wtf !

[disneyprincess11]

Disney is "Disney" for the techniques the studio uses, and the love, magic, and creativity they put in to develop their movies which gives them their identity. Not so much what the movie itself is about.

Think of it this way. A painter named Sam could do several paintings based the themes of lets say... love, romance, sunny days, etc. Then years later, he'll start doing paintings that are full of violent, gruesome themes, or of the macabre.
Some critics might exclaim "that's not Sam! Sam doesn't do that! Sam's paintings are only based on love!"
But yet it was still by Sam. It was still created by his own hands, and he still put in his own techniques and style which gave his paintings his usual signature identity. All he changed, was the subject matter.

What makes a Disney movie "Disney" is how it's made and the way it's done, not by what it's about.

What's funny is that Duster is also arguing for that as well. Telling us how a Disney movie should be made like and "identity".

oh and

SHE'S THE BEST DANCER EVER *sarcasm*