Disney's Mort

[Super Aurora]

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

and "FUN FUN FUN FUN"

"Gotta have my bowl, gotta have cereal "

[Goliath]

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.

Excellent point in an excellent post! Thank you! You said what I couldn't put into words! I'm just so glad Walt Disney never had an adviser like Disney Duster, because it would have totally stifled him and sunk his company.

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.

Very well put. I'm sorry, but I'm going to use your Sam-the-painter example as an excuse to talk a bit about Bob Dylan again. When he abandoned acoustic folk-music to go 'electric', all of his fans scorned him. He would even get boo-ed during concerts when he performed with a band. Those fans, much like Disney Duster, wouldn't allow Dylan to evolve and broaden his experiences. They said his new songs weren't "Dylan" anymore, like Duster is saying new Disney films aren't "Disney" anymore, even though nowadays, decades later, we consider those rock songs, that were cast away by former fans, as "classic Dylan". If Dylan has always played it safe to placate his fans, he would have *never* become the superstar and recognized musical genius he is nowadays. Sometimes you have to go against all expectations to become better. I just hope Disney will do this. With Lilo & Stitch, they have proven they can do this.

Speaking of "un-Disney" things: Duster, do you think Gargoyles was un-Disney? It included a lot of very serious violence. What's your opinion on that?

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. [...]

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? [...]

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. [...]

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. [...]

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. [...]

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.

OKAY, who the fuck can follow what this means?! I mean... REALLY!... is this serious? Is this just an act? Is this zen-buddhism that I, as a mere mortal infidel, cannot understand? Is this Klingon? Is it newspeak? "Classicness"; "un-Disney-like violence"? Am I the only one who's getting a terrible headache?

And am I the only one who find it very amusing that Disney Duster thought he was arguing with himself? If that's not cognitive dissonance...


*Edited to add quotes & responses

[Disney Duster]

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.

Oiy. Okay, look, I was talking about the difference between Fantasia and films that have a narrative, and the characters in Fantasia which are different from characters like Pinocchio or even Dumbo. The characters in Fantasia are more like beautiful concepts. And I never put Fantasia down, when I said it's just animation set to music, I mean it's that instead of a narrative, not that it's not as good as a narrative, just different.

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.

Yes Walt had his personal projects but he was Walt who created what Disney was with any of his personal projects (all his projects could sorta be called personal projects). After he created what Disney is, anyone who works at Disney must create projects that fit what Disney is. Their personal projects would not be the same as Disney's personal projects.

And yea, Lilo & Stitch garnered lots of shows and merchandise thanks to its success that was better than films like Treaure Planet but not more successful than more Disneyish films like The Little Mermaid, and the marketing department that pimps out anything even Cars which was the least successful Disney film.

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.

Once again, the parks are different from the films. There is more room for things in the parks that are not the kinds of things fit for their animated classics. For instance, should their be an animated classic all about energy just because there was a film about energy in the parks? Star Wars is a non-Disney property put in the parks, does that mean Disney can create exactly the same thing, a re-make of Star Wars, just animated?

You see the difference now? Also, just because there were things like aliens in a Disney short, does not mean they should be the main characters of a Disney Animated Classic. That's like saying because Hitler was in some Disney shorts, he should be the main character of a Disney Classic, or should be the main villain, stalking around like Maleficent in his lair!

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.

If you do not see how Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, and The Lion King are more classic-types of stories than Lilo & Stitch, then you don't get it. There is more to the word classic than something still considered good after a long time. Today, people make modern classical music. Classic can be a type of thing.

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.

You never read any of when I already talked about this. From the beginning, I hope people would get that when I said the word "violence" when talking about Lilo & Stitch, I meant the kind of violence that was in it that was un-Disney violence. Your comparisons to other characters just shows how different Stitch was from those other characters, because he is not those same characters. He's Stitch, something rather un-Disney. If only the Disneyfied him a bit more. As for all the different kinds of characters, yea, Lilo could have been a normal girl, but she wasn't quite a girl that fit Disney's children or heroines, if only the Disneyfied her more, too.

Read above how I adressed the Fantasia as a movie issue. Even some other people have said Fantasia is not a movie in quite the same sense of the word as movies with narratives. Even other people on this forum have said it's not a movie the way we all think of movies! I can't find all those instances, though, I read them way back.

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).

Uh...did you forget that all five of Disney's first films were actually similar? First, the first two were both pretty much fairy tales. If you don't by that, they had magic, as did Fantasia and Dumbo! Fairies were in two of the films. Children were the main protagonists of four of the films. Royalty was apart of two of the films. Getting wishes and dreams come true and happily ever afters after overcoming obstacles were part of four of the films. Having dead parents and being outcasts was part of three of the films. A storybook book opened two of the films. Nature and animals, not aliens or technology, were part of all of the films. Aside from that, their was the "Disney way" they were made and Disney Essence and feeling and Disney warmth, heart, and humor present in all the films. Yea, the Disney type of film was in all those films.

To be honest, I am not sure if I think the artists that made Robin Hood, Oliver & Company, and Treasure Planet, Chicken Little, or The Princess and the Frog did them the way Walt would have wanted. But if Oliver & Company and The Princess and the Frog are thought of as whole new stories, it is okay. Meanwhile, the others can only be seen as twisted old stories. Robin Hood is the least bad in that case because at least talking animals of nature are very 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.

There's a difference between Snow White praying or the Sultan saying "Allah", and then Discworld having their whole universe rest on the sacred elephant and turtle deities from a religion!

ajmrowland, everything else that you talked about, I am pretty sure I explained above, so please read what else I wrote in this post, too.

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.

What it means to be Disney does partially also cover the subject. There are some subjects which just don't seem suitable for Disney sometimes. Like, Catcher in the Rye wouldn't make a Disney movie, or Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings. There's just subtle differences between those fantasy works and the Disney kind of fantasy.

Your "Sam" scenario was actually something pretty good, so I want to let you know I commend you for the good idea, but it does not work for one reason: Unlike "Sam", the artist Walt Disney is gone, so that means he can't tell people what is his anymore, we have to figure out his style and use his style on new films. And we should be able to figure it out by simply viewing his old works. We can feel the Disney feeling by watching is old movies, and then we can only rely on if future films and subjects feel un-Disney or not to determine if they should be made or not.

estefan, what may surprise many, is that I think your example is a really good one. I am not entirely sure if it can apply, though, for the reason I explained just above to Lyss.

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.

Oh yay some agreement! But I didn't mean Fantasia was less than a movie, I meant that it was not a movie in the conventional sense. I meant that it is not the type of movie that Mort would be, a movie which would have a narrative and talking, personality-filled, fleshed-out characters.

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...

No, I mean that if you're going to make a Disney film...well, make a Disney film, not a personal film for your own personal interest! And I was saying they were less successful because when trying to do your own interest at a studio meant to be Disney and not serve personal interests, it doesn't work. But this also illustrates the way Pixar and Disney are different, they have their own identities and ways of doing things.

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.

First, classicness does not just come from time. Today people make what is called classical music in modern times. Classic can be a type of thing, and you can easily see it when you see how Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, and The Lion King are more classic subjects than things like Lilo & Stitch.

Next, something missing from The Princess and the Frog was the full Disney feeling. You see, they chose a Disney subject, a fairy tale, and then did an un-Disney thing, by twisting it, putting it in a modern setting. Why would they do that when it didn't work for them the last time they twisted a story with Treasure Planet which was so unsuccessful? Maybe Musker and Clements like twisting things, which is their own personal thing, not a Disney thing.

Now, Lilo & Stitch did have a great sincerity and realisticness, which made the film good, but Disney doesn't just make good movies. If the anime film Akira was at Disney, it would be a good movie but it certainly wouldn't be a Disney movie. Sleeping Beauty isn't considered a very good movie, but it's Disney. And of course I disagree and think it's a great movie! But anyway, it's about being not just good, but Disney. So Lilo & Stitch couldn’t just be sincere and realistic (especially since Disney films aren’t usually very realistic), it had to be more Disney.

By the way, I do love your "Fly!!!" cat avatar, lol, a too cute ball of flying fluff, did they edit it to look like that?!

[Dream Huntress]

And yea, Lilo & Stitch garnered lots of shows and merchandise thanks to its success that was better than films like Treaure Planet but not more successful than more Disneyish films like The Little Mermaid, and the marketing department that pimps out anything even Cars which was the least successful Disney film.

WALL-E is, oh wait, I forgot, is not disney, and is sci-fi, and it was succesful at the box office and is one of the better reviewed movies of all time. Because movies that are not Disney, are sci-fi and have a futuren setting have no right to be considered classics.

If you do not see how Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, and The Lion King are more classic-types of stories than Lilo & Stitch, then you don't get it. There is more to the word classic than something still considered good after a long time. Today, people make modern classical music. Classic can be a type of thing.

I'm sensing that you don't consider Lilo & Stitch a classic because you don't personally like it, you don't seem to give any real argument other than "Is not Disney enough", and that by itself is very subjective.

There's just subtle differences between those fantasy works and the Disney kind of fantasy.

Pocahontas
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan

I rest my case.

No, I mean that if you're going to make a Disney film...well, make a Disney film, not a personal film for your own personal interest! And I was saying they were less successful because when trying to do your own interest at a studio meant to be Disney and not serve personal interests, it doesn't work. But this also illustrates the way Pixar and Disney are different, they have their own identities and ways of doing things.

It also illustrates why Disney is not even second fiddle to Pixar and Dreamworks nowadays. You know there's a reason everybody stopped following the Disney formula of the 90s? Because it stopped working, because people tastes changed, that's why now you see all sorts of animated movies, not just people trying to emulate/rip off Disney.

Next, something missing from The Princess and the Frog was the full Disney feeling. You see, they chose a Disney subject, a fairy tale, and then did an un-Disney thing, by twisting it, putting it in a modern setting. Why would they do that when it didn't work for them the last time they twisted a story with Treasure Planet which was so unsuccessful? Maybe Musker and Clements like twisting things, which is their own personal thing, not a Disney thing.

Riddle me this Batman, how a story set about 90 years ago has a modern setting? And how do you go from the roaring 20s to, you know, THE FUTURE.

But I'm gonna have to disagree, if there was something that affected PATF is how much they tried to play it with the Disney formula, instead of actually investing work in the characters and the script.

Now, Lilo & Stitch did have a great sincerity and realisticness, which made the film good, but Disney doesn't just make good movies. If the anime film Akira was at Disney, it would be a good movie but it certainly wouldn't be a Disney movie. Sleeping Beauty isn't considered a very good movie, but it's Disney. And of course I disagree and think it's a great movie! But anyway, it's about being not just good, but Disney. So Lilo & Stitch couldn’t just be sincere and realistic (especially since Disney films aren’t usually very realistic), it had to be more Disney.

Whenever I said "Lilo & Stitch" was realistic? I said sincere, and by that I mean that you can feel the makers were actually very invested in the project, they truly enjoyed working on it and you can feel how much they wanted to tell this story, not because it fit some retro old time idea of what the company they work for represents, but because they had a good story they wanted to tell.

All projects are personal projects to some extent, if the handlers of a movie didn't have some interest in the story they want to tell if would feel very hollow. What I'm gathering is that according to you, people at Disney should never dare to come with an original, personal idea and want to make a movie about it, because that would go against everything Disney stands for, and it would be a mess, and people would hate, even though the animation field has changed, even though Disney is still third best next to Pixar and Dreamworks -and sometimes not even that- and that terefore should take more risks and grow and tell better stories.

But according to you, if it is not Disney enough, it doesn't matter that people loved it, the critics praised it, it made it's production costs back, that the people that made it absolutely adore it, and it's still well liked by the public after years of it's release, because is not Disney enough then it's not a classic, and is just not good.

Something tells me that if Glenn Keane had been able to tell his version of Rapunzel, you would be complaining about it right this minute.

By the way, I do love your "Fly!!!" cat avatar, lol, a too cute ball of flying fluff, did they edit it to look like that?!

I really don't know, I got the image from this site called Cute Overload. But thanks, it is cute, isn't it?

[Super Aurora]

This may come shock from people but as much as I tease and go ga-ga crazy over Duster's way of arguing and putting things in words(and that I disagree with him as whole)

I do know what he trying to get at. It just that the way he puts it is very confusing and wtf-ish. His words like "Disney Essence" "un-disney" "the disney feelings" etc are very dumb and outlandish but I'm assuming he doesn't know how to put it in words and context.

What Duster trying to go for is the conservative way of Disney keeping a standard and consistent formula. The topic, theme etc can be different, but at the same times try to maintain within things you'd find in a Disney film than you would in say...Warner Brothers film or something.

But thing that I and many others disagree with Duster on is that Lilo and Stitch does not fit the general qualities and overall content that make the film a Disney film. I do admit when I first watch this movie back then, it did leave me at a "huh" and labeled it as an "odd Disney" movie. And that's because Lilo and Stitch broke the conventional and expected Disney Formula which is mostly talking animals, fairytale, classical myths and novels, etc. Instead went somewhere different from it with the aliens, modern Hawaii, elvis etc.

But one thing remain is that like all Disney films, Lilo and Stitch teach a moral value and moral lesson that is filled in practically all their movies. This is what makes Disney viewed as a "Film for the Family" that Disney is often branded with.

Lilo and Stitch is perfect as it's IS a film about the family and what it means to be a family. I think that there is something that really make it a Disney film. back then I never was able see that but later on I did.

Now for Mort. To be honest, I, as well as others, don't understand Duster explanation here. The first thing off, Duster admit he has not read the book. That there should of end the discussion as why is duster arguing something he has not read or experience.

Second off, As mention above about duster's try explanation, while Mort does not fill the conventional Disney formula that we are all so use to, I think it's a great gateway to open up for Disney to expand and push the boundaries of a what makes a Disney film.
If we are stuck in the same old tried formula for too long, eventually it'll get stale and people will get tired of it and they won't do successfully. Lilo and Stitch I find to be first film to start establish of a new break through in the boundaries.
We should be optimistic and open minded to new ideas for disney as time is changing quickly and change is something Disney will need to adapt.

I remember when watching Waking Sleeping Beauty, that they addressed the "what would Walt wanted" ordeal. They did try that in the 70's, and it didn't come out well for them. So they had to scrap it majority and only went for key elements. That's what they did. By the time of Lilo and Stitch came around, Sanders was able push the envelope even further than what they did during Disney Renaissance and yet still remain true to what a makes a Disney film.

So core thing of what makes a Disney film?: It's moral teaching and values.

This is why many people get that notion of fairytale being attach to Disney. Cause Fairytale(and even myths and shit) are pretty much ARE about moral lessons and teaching. So there you go.


OH and ....

<center>

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_li14sa0c7D1qelhpt.gif






</center>

[LySs]

Lol as hilariously bad "Friday" is, I kinda feel sorry for her with all the abusive comments she's been getting. Being 13 is an awkward and sensitive phase for a girl.

But at the same time, her parents should've known better than publicize their 13-year old daughter on the internet without expecting a nuclear backlash.


With that said

<center></center>

[Super Aurora]

Lol as hilariously bad "Friday" is, I kinda feel sorry for her with all the abusive comments she's been getting. Being 13 is an awkward and sensitive phase for a girl.

But at the same time, her parents should've known better than publicize their 13-year old daughter on the internet without expecting a nuclear backlash.

Actually She and that other girl are taking it rather humorously. Black makes jokes about it too in her twitter. And the white girl I post up had youtube video where she answered the questions rather maturely.

[Goliath]

Uh...did you forget that all five of Disney's first films were actually similar? First, the first two were both pretty much fairy tales. If you don't by that, they had magic, as did Fantasia and Dumbo!

Oh my God... You really don't get it, do you? There's more to a film than a few superficial comparisons. You take two or three very broad and ill-defined concepts ("magic") and therefore, you decide these five features were all the same. Have you even *seen* them? Anybody who has *seen* them, couldn't say they were the same. Fantasia is a concert feature! It's classical music set to (abstract) animation! How is that the same as Bambi? Bambi is a film about nature, in which very little actually happens, because it's more about atmosphere than story. How is that the same as Pinocchio, that's very much plot-driven?

And how can you say this is not "Disney":

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/xVptV ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/xVptV ... 1&hl=nl_NL" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

[ajmrowland]

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.

If you do not see how Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, and The Lion King are more classic-types of stories than Lilo & Stitch, then you don't get it. There is more to the word classic than something still considered good after a long time. Today, people make modern classical music. Classic can be a type of thing.

I really like those movies you mentioned. And at least 101 Dalmatians is a classic, IMO. Lion King I LOVE, and it's based off of shakespear. Your right about one thing. A classic isnt just something that's good after a long time. It's something that's GREAT after a long time. Memorable. Appealing to every new reader/moviegoer no matter how old. I know a kid who doesnt really like black and white films but really enjoys the original King Kong.

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.

You never read any of when I already talked about this. From the beginning, I hope people would get that when I said the word "violence" when talking about Lilo & Stitch, I meant the kind of violence that was in it that was un-Disney violence. Your comparisons to other characters just shows how different Stitch was from those other characters, because he is not those same characters. He's Stitch, something rather un-Disney. If only the Disneyfied him a bit more. As for all the different kinds of characters, yea, Lilo could have been a normal girl, but she wasn't quite a girl that fit Disney's children or heroines, if only the Disneyfied her more, too.

Your posts are walls of text. Hard to not read them, at least for me.

Read above how I adressed the Fantasia as a movie issue. Even some other people have said Fantasia is not a movie in quite the same sense of the word as movies with narratives. Even other people on this forum have said it's not a movie the way we all think of movies! I can't find all those instances, though, I read them way back.

read it. read it every possible language, even took it to a few experts to decipher. I gave you the fucking definition of "film" or "movie". go read that.

[/quote]

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).

Uh...did you forget that all five of Disney's first films were actually similar? First, the first two were both pretty much fairy tales. If you don't by that, they had magic, as did Fantasia and Dumbo! Fairies were in two of the films. Children were the main protagonists of four of the films. Royalty was apart of two of the films. Getting wishes and dreams come true and happily ever afters after overcoming obstacles were part of four of the films. Having dead parents and being outcasts was part of three of the films. A storybook book opened two of the films. Nature and animals, not aliens or technology, were part of all of the films. Aside from that, their was the "Disney way" they were made and Disney Essence and feeling and Disney warmth, heart, and humor present in all the films. Yea, the Disney type of film was in all those films.[/quote] Cause Snow White was all about how to survive in life? Cuz Dumbo was a film made up of short segments with classical music? Bambi obviously met a whole slew of villains out to get him in a cold, cruel world. The only similarity between even three of them is the Cold, Cruel World. that's it. "Dreams come true"? Pinnocchio worked for his, Snow White waited for hers, but Dumbo, Bambi, and most of the Fantasia cast had no expressed dreams whatsoever. Storybook opening is a minor thing. It has an impact, but is still very small. And Pinnocchio had no more "Nature and Animals" then Lilo and Stitch, which was one scene. Monstro is there, i guess, but he was a villified force of nature.

To be honest, I am not sure if I think the artists that made Robin Hood, Oliver & Company, and Treasure Planet, Chicken Little, or The Princess and the Frog did them the way Walt would have wanted. But if Oliver & Company and The Princess and the Frog are thought of as whole new stories, it is okay. Meanwhile, the others can only be seen as twisted old stories. Robin Hood is the least bad in that case because at least talking animals of nature are very Disney.[.quote] they spent most of the 60s and 70s wondering "What would Walt do" and Robin Hood was very much like that. He's dead. an artist has his own creative styles and juices, and Walt himself let the ideas of others into his films.

There's a difference between Snow White praying or the Sultan saying "Allah", and then Discworld having their whole universe rest on the sacred elephant and turtle deities from a religion!

I was talking about HoND, Mulan, Hercules, Fantasia, and all the *obvious* references you just so happened to neglect.

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.

What it means to be Disney does partially also cover the subject. There are some subjects which just don't seem suitable for Disney sometimes. Like, Catcher in the Rye wouldn't make a Disney movie, or Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings. There's just subtle differences between those fantasy works and the Disney kind of fantasy.[.quote] This is somewhat true. But then again, you're referring to content that already became Live Action movies and the like when just as "un-disney" movies like Old Dogs, the Pacifier, and Remember the Titans were made regardless(not to mention the Disney Channel). The only thing keeping Disney from Harry Potter was Eisner's stupidity cuz he thought it wouldnt make enough money. Lord of the Rings, I actually dont really see as being Disney. But like I said, "Disney feeling" doesnt seem to extend to live-action within the studio.

Your "Sam" scenario was actually something pretty good, so I want to let you know I commend you for the good idea, but it does not work for one reason: Unlike "Sam", the artist Walt Disney is gone, so that means he can't tell people what is his anymore, we have to figure out his style and use his style on new films. And we should be able to figure it out by simply viewing his old works. We can feel the Disney feeling by watching is old movies, and then we can only rely on if future films and subjects feel un-Disney or not to determine if they should be made or not.

are you an artist? If so, you'll know that replicating/copying/plajurizing someone else's style is just not natural. If not, dont go talking like you understand what it's like.

Oh yay some agreement! But I didn't mean Fantasia was less than a movie, I meant that it was not a movie in the conventional sense. I meant that it is not the type of movie that Mort would be, a movie which would have a narrative and talking, personality-filled, fleshed-out characters.

Finally, some sense!

No, I mean that if you're going to make a Disney film...well, make a Disney film, not a personal film for your own personal interest! And I was saying they were less successful because when trying to do your own interest at a studio meant to be Disney and not serve personal interests, it doesn't work. But this also illustrates the way Pixar and Disney are different, they have their own identities and ways of doing things.

My artist statement rings truer than ever. Not to mention the formula thing.

First, classicness does not just come from time. Today people make what is called classical music in modern times. Classic can be a type of thing, and you can easily see it when you see how Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, and The Lion King are more classic subjects than things like Lilo & Stitch.

time plays a major factor, because classics need to have lasting power and popularity. songs from QUEEN can be called classic. Harry Potter-despite the tween girl fanbase-is likely going to have lasting power and popularity. Lord of the Rings is a classic trilogy, the Hobbit just as much so. How many books were written in the 30s? a lot. Which ones are still popular and well-remembered? Lady and the Tramp as a Magazine story has far less "classic status" than the movie.

[quote[Next, something missing from The Princess and the Frog was the full Disney feeling. You see, they chose a Disney subject, a fairy tale, and then did an un-Disney thing, by twisting it, putting it in a modern setting. Why would they do that when it didn't work for them the last time they twisted a story with Treasure Planet which was so unsuccessful? Maybe Musker and Clements like twisting things, which is their own personal thing, not a Disney thing.

PatF was the result of trying too much to be Disney. It had nothing to do with the already 80 year old setting, nor the mere *fact* that the story was twisted into something else(for the millionth time, Disney *always* does that with adaptations).

Now, Lilo & Stitch did have a great sincerity and realisticness, which made the film good, but Disney doesn't just make good movies. If the anime film Akira was at Disney, it would be a good movie but it certainly wouldn't be a Disney movie. Sleeping Beauty isn't considered a very good movie, but it's Disney. And of course I disagree and think it's a great movie! But anyway, it's about being not just good, but Disney. So Lilo & Stitch couldn’t just be sincere and realistic (especially since Disney films aren’t usually very realistic), it had to be more Disney.

Disney made far more "good" movies than "great" ones. That's an inevitability that any adult human can say because EVERY STUDIO makes duds.

By the way, I do love your "Fly!!!" cat avatar, lol, a too cute ball of flying fluff, did they edit it to look like that?!

agreed. it's hilarious!

[Disney Duster]

WALL-E is, oh wait, I forgot, is not disney, and is sci-fi, and it was succesful at the box office and is one of the better reviewed movies of all time. Because movies that are not Disney, are sci-fi and have a futuren setting have no right to be considered classics.

Um...did you not realize I was saying there's more than one meaning for the word classic? For instance their is modern music that is still called classical because classic is also a style. Nature and talking animals and organic things and magic are more classic than aliens and technology and twisting history like Discworld. Disney used to use more classic subjects than Pixar for their movies.

There's just subtle differences between those fantasy works and the Disney kind of fantasy.

Pocahontas
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hercules
Mulan
Tarzan

I rest my case.

Um...what? Those are all classic legends or literature, and there is certainly Disney kind of fantasy in all those, the talking tree, talking gargoyles, mythical gods, talking dragon, a man who can talk to apes. It's all Disney.

Riddle me this Batman, how a story set about 90 years ago has a modern setting? And how do you go from the roaring 20s to, you know, THE FUTURE.

Oh, I should have specified that The Princess and the Frog was done in an un-Disney untraditional way for a fairy tale because the setting was changed from the original old one to a more modern one. However, since it is like a brand new story, even though it is highly doubtful Walt would ever do a fairy tale that way, at least it's not so bad because it's treated as a new story instead of twisting the old one. Treasure Planet, however, wasn't a new story, it was just Treasure Planet's storyline and characters futarized and space-ized.

But I'm gonna have to disagree, if there was something that affected PATF is how much they tried to play it with the Disney formula, instead of actually investing work in the characters and the script.

Oh, they definately should have invested more, we agree with that, but keeping it the original Frog Prince fairy tale would have also made it more Disney and made it much better.

Look Dream Huntress, they can be new, even bold and daring...but they gotta keep it Disney. I could see Lilo & Stitch being Disney if they fixed how they characterized Lilo and that alien. Maybe Discworld could be Disney but they'd have to change a lot, the very universe is un-Disney, being a twist on a religious idea.

I do know what he trying to get at. It just that the way he puts it is very confusing and wtf-ish. His words like "Disney Essence" "un-disney" "the disney feelings" etc are very dumb and outlandish but I'm assuming he doesn't know how to put it in words and context.

You'll be honest no matter if your friends might be hurt or not. Well, it's only as stupid as believing that Disney is more than a just a business or company, that they have an identity, and believing in the things their old films and Walt Disney said.

Anyway, I didn't use the word Disney formula because that is still not what I mean. A formula is something that is a rather jaded view, like a check list of ingredients. A formula is something I would say maybe the 90's films had, but not all Disney films in the entire world! Disney is like...a style, something that shapes all the subjects, character, humor, heart, art, and feelings of the films. I wouldn't say a formula does that. You can't think they've been using the same "formula" over the past years. Aladdin was very different from past Disney movies but I still consider it Disney. Or the Rescuers, that's not a typical kind of Disney movie but I still find it very Disney.

I think Stitch could have been Disney if he was more cute and less an experiment created just to be evil and wreak havic. It's like he didn't have anything in him other than evil when before that, every creature in a Disney movie had much more of a feeling of a soul or personality. Stitch gained his good personality later but before that he felt like a destructing machine. If they just fixed that to show he wasn't just a destructing machine, or what, he miraculosuly gained a soul?

Disney is not just about morals and teachings, either. To say that is really restrictive. like saying they are so little.

Goliath, I already very well explained how similar those first Disney films still were. They were different, but similar. That's what Disney needs to be today. But they need to have the right kind of similarities, the gentle way Disney filsm were, not the un-Disney type of weirdness and violence in Lilo & Stitch. And I would say that Pinocchio had atsmosphere and action as did Bambi had both atmosphere and action. In fact even Fantasia was very atmospheric. And Dumbo was like Bambi alot complete with non-talking boy child animal, which was like boy child puppet, oh man it goes on, I'll stop.

As for your Lilo & Stitch clip, you'll be glad to know there was a small shock to me when I forgot how beautiful and Disney the opening was. It's when Lilo gets to weird and violent and Stitch comes in that the unDisneyness starts. Lilo & Stitch is some Disney, but also some un-Disney.

If you do not see how Lady and the Tramp, 101 Dalmatians, and The Lion King are more classic-types of stories than Lilo & Stitch, then you don't get it. There is more to the word classic than something still considered good after a long time. Today, people make modern classical music. Classic can be a type of thing.

I really like those movies you mentioned. And at least 101 Dalmatians is a classic, IMO. Lion King I LOVE, and it's based off of shakespear.

You didn't understand that I was saying 101 Dalmatians and The Lion King are classic types of stories. If you must, please read what I said more carefully.

And Pinnocchio had no more "Nature and Animals" then Lilo and Stitch, which was one scene. Monstro is there, i guess, but he was a villified force of nature.

I already pointed out how, yes, Walt first few films were different, but similar, which is what Disney new movies need to be, different, but similar, and they need to have the right, Disney similarities. Snd you forgot there were a talking cat and fox in Pinocchio, another Disney similarity, nature and animals with fantasy, the talking animals.

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.

There's a difference between Snow White praying or the Sultan saying "Allah", and then Discworld having their whole universe rest on the sacred elephant and turtle deities from a religion!

I was talking about HoND, Mulan, Hercules, Fantasia, and all the *obvious* references you just so happened to neglect.[/quote]
Those are all different from making a whole universe that references a religion by being rested on the elephant and turtle deities from a religion! The other references you made are simply peopel talking about religion and then Chernabog is hard to say because he is from folklore. If he was referencing religion, that is still only characters that come from religion, like angels. Devils and angels are not considered religious these days, even non-religious believing people use them. It is not the same as an entire world of Discworld resting on religion, the elephant and turtle gods.

What it means to be Disney does partially also cover the subject. There are some subjects which just don't seem suitable for Disney sometimes. Like, Catcher in the Rye wouldn't make a Disney movie, or Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings. There's just subtle differences between those fantasy works and the Disney kind of fantasy.[.quote] This is somewhat true. But then again, you're referring to content that already became Live Action movies and the like when just as "un-disney" movies like Old Dogs, the Pacifier, and Remember the Titans were made regardless(not to mention the Disney Channel). The only thing keeping Disney from Harry Potter was Eisner's stupidity cuz he thought it wouldnt make enough money. Lord of the Rings, I actually dont really see as being Disney. But like I said, "Disney feeling" doesnt seem to extend to live-action within the studio.

Here I think you are right. In the live-action, Walt did things he wouldn't make his animated classics out of, and today Disney does even more off things in their live-action like the awful Hannah Montanna movie. But I am actually not sure if I can say if this un-Disney since wacky comedies and pop singers were part of Disneys TV and live-action films before. It is only the quality and way of making the films which may be un-Disney and bad for many of the shows and live-action films.

Your "Sam" scenario was actually something pretty good, so I want to let you know I commend you for the good idea, but it does not work for one reason: Unlike "Sam", the artist Walt Disney is gone, so that means he can't tell people what is his anymore, we have to figure out his style and use his style on new films. And we should be able to figure it out by simply viewing his old works. We can feel the Disney feeling by watching is old movies, and then we can only rely on if future films and subjects feel un-Disney or not to determine if they should be made or not.

are you an artist? If so, you'll know that replicating/copying/plajurizing someone else's style is just not natural. If not, dont go talking like you understand what it's like.

I'm an artist myself, yes, and that is not stealing someone's work. Walt Disney directed his studio, and actually took their art to make his movies. But he put his essence on their work, or rather, they put his essence in their work, to make Disney films. That's what we must do today. And you do know some peopel make homage pieces of art to emulate other people's styles like when you tried to do a Tim Burton style painting.

[Duckburger]

Nobody gets to say whether films about aliens can be *classic* (starting to really dislike this word) or not. Just because Walt didn't make a film about it when he was alive doesn't mean it's not acceptable for Disney to make an animated film about aliens. At the time it was just a new concept for Disney to try out, rather than always make films about humans with parental issues (which ironically enough Lilo & Stitch is also all about) or anthropomorphic animals (again, the joke being that Stitch = talking dog-like creature). The way you define a "classic subject" is completely inaccurate, an "already done subject" is more appropriate for what you're talking about, and even if your discription of a "classic subject" was true Lilo & Stitch seems to fit the bill pretty nicely. Everybody can make up their own standards and whatnot in their heads, but that doesn't automatically make it so. The point being that something doesn't have to be already done by Walt for it to be considered a Disney film (classic to be precise) - just because it's a new subject doesn't mean it's un-Disney (ugh). In your opinion, sure --for a fact, no.

Of course Disney, at this point, is all business. The people who run it now are trying to make a profit. Shareholders. CEO's. COO's. This isn't a charity. There was hardly any competition back in those days, and in the last couple of years there are more animated films coming out than ever before. Competition is harsh and they need to keep up with the times. People would definitely not be lining up in front of theatres to go see something like Sleeping Beauty (apparantly they didn't in the '50s either), Cinderella or Snow White. This so-called *classic* term doesn't even apply anymore. If this were the '90s, I'm sure we'd all be arguing with you over why Ariel didn't die at the end of The Little Mermaid. And why Aladdin isn't set in it's original country (or something like that, I honestly don't care enough to Google it). Those kinds of things. It's dumb. The Little Mermaid logic works for Tangled and Princess and the Frog too.

Lilo & Stitch is not un-Disney, no matter how many times you repeat it with the same broken logic. If you'd just put "in my opinion, that's all" at the end people wouldn't be so pissed off.


And... yes, the floating cat avatar is awesome. I thought that was implied. Also, it's now saturday here, which means sunday comes afterwards.

[SWillie!]

I haven't been keeping up whatsoever with this, but I just wanted to butt in and say thanks Goliath for posting that Lilo and Stitch vid with the subtitles... I always wondered what they were saying, and knowing the idea behind the song makes it way better.

And very much "Disney"

[Super Aurora]

Also, it's now saturday here, which means sunday comes afterwards.

I have not one but TWO doctor appointments on...TWWWOOOOOODAY.







I still think Disney should make a classic and disneyified story of a romantic love between a penis and a vagina.

[ajmrowland]

I only saw two things worth responding to in Duster's post.

1. I got that they were classic stories of which one is a severely twisted adaptation, by your logic. if you're dumb enough to believe I didnt get that..............................it's simply common sense.

2.Okay, plajurizing is technically stealing. But the essence of one man is unattainable by other men cuz nobody else was Walt Disney.

3. I dont really know much about discworld and the religion made up. I was talking about Disney movies.

I already pointed out how, yes, Walt first few films were different, but similar, which is what Disney new movies need to be, different, but similar, and they need to have the right, Disney similarities. Snd you forgot there were a talking cat and fox in Pinocchio, another Disney similarity, nature and animals with fantasy, the talking animals.

I already pointed out how, yes, Walt first few films were different, but similar, which is what Disney new movies need to be, different, but similar, and they need to have the right, Disney similarities. Snd you forgot there were a talking cat and fox in Pinocchio, another Disney similarity, nature and animals with fantasy, the talking animals.

a talking cat and fox that walk on two legs and wear clothes hardly classifies as nature.

That said, I'm not denying there are *some* similarities-Pinnocchio and Bambi are essentially about growing up, for instance. I just think your exaggerating how many there are by a hell of a lot.

[DisneyAnimation88]

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.

That's an excellent point and an interesting one in regards to To Kill A Mockingbird. I'm sure it was Walt's son-in-law Ron Miller who said that after they watched the film adaptation of TKAM, Walt became very depressed and frustrated as those were the type of films that he wanted to make but he felt too stifled by his reputation and the public's perception of him and his company to do so.

Nobody gets to say whether films about aliens can be *classic*

Apart from Disney Duster it seems.

Lilo & Stitch is not un-Disney, no matter how many times you repeat it with the same broken logic. If you'd just put "in my opinion, that's all" at the end people wouldn't be so pissed off.

Amen.

Nature and talking animals and organic things and magic are more classic than aliens and technology and twisting history like Discworld. Disney used to use more classic subjects than Pixar for their movies.

Find a quote from Walt Disney that actually says that Disney films have to have magic and I might be inclined to believe you.

Oh, I should have specified that The Princess and the Frog was done in an un-Disney untraditional way for a fairy tale because the setting was changed from the original old one to a more modern one. However, since it is like a brand new story, even though it is highly doubtful Walt would ever do a fairy tale that way, at least it's not so bad because it's treated as a new story instead of twisting the old one. Treasure Planet, however, wasn't a new story, it was just Treasure Planet's storyline and characters futarized and space-ized.

You're like a broken record, it's the same thing over and over and over and over. This is your problem: you have all these rules and guidelines that qualifies a film as "Disney" or having "essence". BUT THEY ARE YOUR OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS, THE REST OF US DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERY TECHNICALITY YOU COME UP WITH.

And space-ized?

Look Dream Huntress, they can be new, even bold and daring...but they gotta keep it Disney. I could see Lilo & Stitch being Disney if they fixed how they characterized Lilo and that alien. Maybe Discworld could be Disney but they'd have to change a lot, the very universe is un-Disney, being a twist on a religious idea.

Get it through your head, Lilo & Stitch IS DISNEY, it doesn't have to be changed because you say so. And Disney can do whatever they want when it comes to their films, what authority or credentials do you have to tell them what stories they can and can't adapt?

I think Stitch could have been Disney if he was more cute and less an experiment created just to be evil and wreak havic.

It's a make-believe work of fantasy, why oh why do you have to take it so seriously and not see it for what it is, a bit of harmless fun and entertainment?

Devils and angels are not considered religious these days, even non-religious believing people use them. It is not the same as an entire world of Discworld resting on religion, the elephant and turtle gods.

Here's an idea; why not actually read some Discworld novels before you pass your judgements on it?

[ajmrowland]

^*to DD* Nope, I got this one. It's because they're not from "Disney Press" and they arent household names so they must be bad.

[LySs]

I think Stitch could have been Disney if he was more cute and less an experiment created just to be evil and wreak havic.

But...Stitch IS cute (& fluffy). If he wasn't, he wouldn't be so damn popular in Japan.

Also, since when does a character have to be "cute" to be "Disney"?

[Elladorine]

I think Stitch could have been Disney if he was more cute and less an experiment created just to be evil and wreak havic.

But...Stitch IS cute (& fluffy). If he wasn't, he wouldn't be so damn popular in Japan.

Also, since when does a character have to be "cute" to be "Disney"?

Disney has always been populated with good and evil characters; cute ones, sexy ones, ugly ones, pretty ones . . . and I agree here: since when does a character have to be "cute" to be "Disney?"

Stitch may have been created to be evil within the story but becomes good in the end regardless, and the change he experiences is the core of the story. And whether or not he's "cute" is a matter of opinion . . .

<object width="450" height="392"><param name="movie" value="http://backend.deviantart.com/embed/view.swf" /><param name="flashvars" value="id=195070478&width=1337" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://backend.deviantart.com/embed/view.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" flashvars="id=195070478&width=1337" height="392" allowscriptaccess="always"></embed></object>
<a href="http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/195070478/">I Like Cute and Fluffy</a> by *<a class="u" href="http://enigmawing.deviantart.com/">enigmawing</a> on <a href="http://www.deviantart.com">deviant</a><a href="http://www.deviantart.com">ART</a>

. . . although I personally find him to be cute (and fluffy!) myself.

[Goliath]

I think Stitch could have been Disney if he was more cute [...]

Yeah, like Cruella de Vil! She was 'Disney' because everybody wanted to cuddle her!

[Disney Duster]

Duckburger, then what on Earth is Disney? Is there no subject they can't cover? Should they cover drug busts and porn, or cats that say their son has a flavor? Don't you ever get a feeling for what Disney is, and what kind of things they would or wouldn't do? I mean, you're a fan of Disney, doesn't that mean you're fan of something that exists, not a fan of everything and anything in the world? So that means Disney can't just do anything and everything.

If you don't believe Disney is special and has it's own identity which means they only cover certain things, that fit them, well, I have new that some people think Disney is a lot more special like that.

And I already explained Disney has always been about happy endings but keeping character's original backgrounds, so The Little Mermaid is fine but not Tangled because Tangled changed character backgrounds.

2.Okay, plajurizing is technically stealing. But the essence of one man is unattainable by other men cuz nobody else was Walt Disney.

Did you miss where I said the men who worked for Walt when he was alive captured his essence in their art? Myabe you wouldn't use those words, but I think you know what I mean. And that's what they have to capture today, too.

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

What?! I guess in one sense of the word, but I'm not sure about if it is classic in the Disney sense of the word. It is not the same kind of classic as something like The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Jungle Book.

I'm sure it was Walt's son-in-law Ron Miller who said that after they watched the film adaptation of TKAM, Walt became very depressed and frustrated as those were the type of films that he wanted to make but he felt too stifled by his reputation and the public's perception of him and his company to do so.

Now that's surprising. We cannot be sure if Walt meant he wanted to cover such subjects or get his films to be as dark, dramatic, or serious as that kind of film. But there is one thing, To Kill A Mocking Bird is still a literature classic, everyone, see? And Lilo & Stitch and Chicken Little and Treasure Planet are not like that, either, see?

It's a make-believe work of fantasy, why oh why do you have to take it so seriously and not see it for what it is, a bit of harmless fun and entertainment?

I think movies are more than just entertainment, especially Disney movies, and I take them seriously. I thought that was the reason people come to this forum, at least for a lot of people.

Here's an idea; why not actually read some Discworld novels before you pass your judgements on it?

I read the very first Discworld novel, The Color of Magic. If all of you are going to miss things like that about me, I can only keep coming to the conclusion that none of you are comprehending all the details of what Disney is, from all the past examples of their Walt or Renaissance movies.

Also, since when does a character have to be "cute" to be "Disney"?

Ha, I never said that any character has to be cute to be Disney. I said that Stitch had to be more cute. A Disney expert on the last Sleeping Beauty release said Sleeping Beauty tried a new style for Disney, but the characters were still warm and cute and cuddly, specifically saying "they're still Disney characters". In Disney tradition, a Disney main character would be more cute, while only villains would be un-cute and cuddly like Goliath joked about. Cute and cuddly aren't even the best words, but I think you all know what I mean.

And yes Stitch is cute, but he needed to be more like something you know Disney for. He could still be an alien but more of a Disney one, more mischevious than just plain destructive. Something. Some more semblance of a good soul underneath his alien exterior before he meets Lilo, not just after he meets her, and even then, he still could've been more Disney and less creepy.

I'm pretty sure all of you knew what I meant by saying Stitch had to be more cute, but you all just jumped on the chance to take my words out of context and make fun of it, without thinking about what I mean.