DVDizzy Forum

disneyprincess11 wrote:Seriously, we only see him on Disney Jr. and Disney World and Epic Mickey. Now it's all like, "All hail, Hannah Montana!".

The irony? Hannah Montana isn't even on Disney Channel anymore. But room had to be made for another stupid tween show. Seriously, we don't need any more of those...

DisneyJedi wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote:Seriously, we only see him on Disney Jr. and Disney World and Epic Mickey. Now it's all like, "All hail, Hannah Montana!".

The irony? Hannah Montana isn't even on Disney Channel anymore. But room had to be made for another stupid tween show. Seriously, we don't need any more of those...

Yeah,whats up with that all that money could be going to finding good new animated shows but no we have to bring on another bunch of cruddy live action shows that just insults our intelligence.

I mean serious who is in charge of the television section of Disney because they seriously don't know a thing about quality programming.

jazzflower92 wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote: The irony? Hannah Montana isn't even on Disney Channel anymore. But room had to be made for another stupid tween show. Seriously, we don't need any more of those...

Yeah,whats up with that all that money could be going to finding good new animated shows but no we have to bring on another bunch of cruddy live action shows that just insults our intelligence.

I mean serious who is in charge of the television section of Disney because they seriously don't know a thing about quality programming.

There is more cruddy live action shows off of the Disney Channel than on it. In fact I would rather watch the Disney Channel live action shows over a large portion of the non-Disney Channel live action shows to be honest. I know it is fashionable to hate on them but they aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be.

The_Iceflash wrote:

jazzflower92 wrote: Yeah,whats up with that all that money could be going to finding good new animated shows but no we have to bring on another bunch of cruddy live action shows that just insults our intelligence.

I mean serious who is in charge of the television section of Disney because they seriously don't know a thing about quality programming.

There is more cruddy live action shows off of the Disney Channel than on it. In fact I would rather watch the Disney Channel live action shows over a large portion of the non-Disney Channel live action shows to be honest. I know it is fashionable to hate on them but they aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be.

Haha that's the complete opposite of me I loved all the old Disney stuff - even up to wizards of waverly place. but the shows after that are just absoluty shocking! I'd rather watch the Nickelodeon stuff like Icarly

DisneyJedi wrote:

disneyprincess11 wrote:Seriously, we only see him on Disney Jr. and Disney World and Epic Mickey. Now it's all like, "All hail, Hannah Montana!".

The irony? Hannah Montana isn't even on Disney Channel anymore. But room had to be made for another stupid tween show. Seriously, we don't need any more of those...

Yeah, I said HM for a good example. But, yeah. Now, DC is runned by 13-year olds.

Disney Duster wrote:But you're the one who said I was trolling when I said this was un-Disney. Now you agree with me?

No.

I just don't like the idea of a Mickey Mouse feature. But there's nothing "un-Disney" about it whatsoever. I just think it reeks of the same laziness and lack of originality as the umteenth Pooh-sequel which was inappropriately made part of the Classics canon.

jazzflower92 wrote:I mean serious who is in charge of the television section of Disney because they seriously don't know a thing about quality programming.

That's true, but you seem to think that Disney is interested in quality programming. (Or any network, for that matter.) They're not. They're interested in making money. The kind of shows you've described make them a shitload of money in merchandise. You have to remember that television shows are just considered nasty interruptions of the commercials, not the other way around.

The_Iceflash wrote:There is more cruddy live action shows off of the Disney Channel than on it. In fact I would rather watch the Disney Channel live action shows over a large portion of the non-Disney Channel live action shows to be honest. I know it is fashionable to hate on them but they aren't as bad as everyone makes them out to be.

Yes, they are. Just because most of the other stuff on tv is crap as well doesn't make the DC shows any better. They're still exactly what jazzflower says they are.

Oh, except for Wizards of Waverly Place.













Okay, that's crap too, but that show at least has one thing to keep me watching.

Goliath wrote: Okay, that's crap too, but that show at least has one thing to keep me watching.

And that is Selena Gomez. fap fap fap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hi6P_IRgDU



This is what I feel like about modern day live action television shows on the Disney Channel.I feel that the Animaniacs if they were still around would have even more fodder against Disney than ever before.Plus this time we Disney would agree with them.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:But you're the one who said I was trolling when I said this was un-Disney. Now you agree with me?

No.

I just don't like the idea of a Mickey Mouse feature. But there's nothing "un-Disney" about it whatsoever. I just think it reeks of the same laziness and lack of originality as the umteenth Pooh-sequel which was inappropriately made part of the Classics canon.

That's funny, you were very proud of the fact the Rescuers got Disney's first ever canon sequel. Pooh's no different...except Pooh was also based on the rest of the book that the first one was, so it was completion, and it was a better sequel, and Pooh originally came from shorts which in in themselves can be seen as sequels to each other and for some reason you've got a problem with his sequel becoming canon but not the string of shorts being made into a canon feature.

Disney Duster wrote:

Goliath wrote: No.

I just don't like the idea of a Mickey Mouse feature. But there's nothing "un-Disney" about it whatsoever. I just think it reeks of the same laziness and lack of originality as the umteenth Pooh-sequel which was inappropriately made part of the Classics canon.

That's funny, you were very proud of the fact the Rescuers got Disney's first ever canon sequel. Pooh's no different...except Pooh was also based on the rest of the book that the first one was, so it was completion, and it was a better sequel, and Pooh originally came from shorts which in in themselves can be seen as sequels to each other and for some reason you've got a problem with his sequel becoming canon but not the string of shorts being made into a canon feature.

Goliath hates Rescuers Down Under.

Disney Duster wrote:That's funny, you were very proud of the fact the Rescuers got Disney's first ever canon sequel.

Why would I be 'proud' of that? I didn't do anything to achieve that, after all. And did I already mention that I didn't like the sequel?

Disney Duster wrote:Pooh's no different...except Pooh was also based on the rest of the book that the first one was, so it was completion, and it was a better sequel, and Pooh originally came from shorts which in in themselves can be seen as sequels to each other and for some reason you've got a problem with his sequel becoming canon but not the string of shorts being made into a canon feature.

Winnie the Pooh was originally planned as yet another direct-to-video sequel. Yet they 'upgraded' it to Classic status because they couldn't think of anything else to do in 2D animation and because they wanted a safe project. (At less than 60 minutes, it's barely even a feature anyway.) The fact that you think it was 'better' than the other sequels, or that it was about 'completion' is irrelevant to my point that it was unoriginal and lazy. *That's* the reason I have a problem with it being called a Classic, not because the movie or the original Pooh-movie are collections of shorts. I never said that was the reason. You just made that up and I don't know why. But anyway, that renders your point about other package features moot.

How is making what was going to be a direct-to-video sequel into a much better made canon feature not a lot less lazy than putting previous shorts together to make a canon feature?

Also you cannot prove they did it just to fill in time and be lazy, but there exists proof that it does complete the book the original was based on.

I didn't say anything about the package features, but now that you mention it a difference between either Winnie the Pooh and the package features is that both Winnie the Pooh movies are based on and complete one single book/story and set of characters while the package features do not. So the Winnie the Pooh films fit more into the "based on one narrative" requirement all other canon films have.

I know right? DIsney Channel needs to shape up this tween nonsense. Thank God Hannah Montana is gone. Her skirts are so dorky. Now Shake It Up is the next Hanna Montana. Zendaya is wearing dorky skirts. GEEEZ. Disney Channel kids really dressed like dorks. Disney Channel, if you want this channel made for kids, then make a new hand drawn series Mickey and friends like you did with Phineas & Ferb!

jazzflower92 wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hi6P_IRgDU



This is what I feel like about modern day live action television shows on the Disney Channel.I feel that the Animaniacs if they were still around would have even more fodder against Disney than ever before.Plus this time we Disney would agree with them.

I totally remember this! I love the Animaniacs. You guys should of seen the whole episode.

Disney Duster wrote:How is making what was going to be a direct-to-video sequel into a much better made canon feature not a lot less lazy than putting previous shorts together to make a canon feature?

Like I already said: that point is moot, because I never brought up the package features or compared them to Winnie the Pooh. But because you insist in dragging them into the discussion, fine, I'll say something about them. I don't know why you compare them to the recent Pooh feature, as that one isn't a package feature at all but one feature. I fail to see why the package features should be considered lazy. They consist of highly diverse subject matters, done in lots of different animation styles, featuring many new original characters. Winnie the Pooh however is just a further milking of an old franchise, using characters and universe that was already there. That involves little creativity.

Disney Duster wrote:Also you cannot prove they did it just to fill in time and be lazy, but there exists proof that it does complete the book the original was based on.

The fact that it does complete the book the original was based on is irrelevant to the question whether or not the film was lazy. Actually, the project was used to keep the animators who only wanted to do 2D animation busy, because after PatF, there was no other project for them. So yes, it was done to fill in time and also because PatF underperformed so they needed something 'safe'.

Disney Duster wrote:I didn't say anything about the package features,

Erm... YOU are the one who brought them up. In case you're starting to develop amnesia, just read back a couple of posts.

Disney Duster wrote:but now that you mention it a difference between either Winnie the Pooh and the package features is that both Winnie the Pooh movies are based on and complete one single book/story and set of characters while the package features do not.

That's not entirely true, since, as far as I know, the books by Milne consist of several stories which were published separetly in magazines or newspapers before. But even if you are right, what does that *mean*? How does that make Winnie the Pooh a better film, in your eyes?

Disney Duster wrote:So the Winnie the Pooh films fit more into the "based on one narrative" requirement all other canon films have.

Who says that is a requirement? Did Walt tell you that from the grave?

Doesn't matter, it's still factually incorrect. 'Pinocchio' by Collodi was a series of different stories published in newspapers seperatly before they were collected in one book. [Insert your technicality as to why that "doesn't count" or "is different" here.]

No I didn't bring up the package features. You thought that's what I was talking about when I said "putting shorts together into one movie" which was the first Winnie the Pooh which you rank as one of top of Disney's canon.

So I was asking how taking previous shorts and adding one more to it to make a canon feature you accept as a top in the canon is not less lazy or more canon than taking what was going to be a direct-to-video feature and spending enough time, craft, and quality on it to make it a canon feature.

As for the stuff about those stories being in magazines, they all continued the same story and were apart of the same narrative with the same world and characters which is what all the Disney Animated Features have been. The package features are not full-length animated features as those are, they are called package features for that reason.

Disney Duster wrote:So I was asking how taking previous shorts and adding one more to it to make a canon feature you accept as a top in the canon is not less lazy or more canon than taking what was going to be a direct-to-video feature and spending enough time, craft, and quality on it to make it a canon feature.

Because. That's why.

Disney Duster wrote:As for the stuff about those stories being in magazines, they all continued the same story and were apart of the same narrative with the same world and characters [...]

... and there's the technicality I was predicting.

Steve Hulett wrote:The only current projects regarding the Mickster of which I was cognizant were some beat boards created by Disney veteran Burny Mattinson and a Mickey project that was being developed by a Disney feature director.

(Whether the director's feature idea is even moving forward at this point, I know not.)...

Steve Hulett wrote:Burny's project, beautifully drawn and filled with nice ideas, sits in his office.

Last time I talked to him, it was ... dormant.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... earch.html

Sotiris wrote:

Steve Hulett wrote:The only current projects regarding the Mickster of which I was cognizant were some beat boards created by Disney veteran Burny Mattinson and a Mickey project that was being developed by a Disney feature director.

(Whether the director's feature idea is even moving forward at this point, I know not.)...

Steve Hulett wrote:Burny's project, beautifully drawn and filled with nice ideas, sits in his office.

Last time I talked to him, it was ... dormant.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... earch.html

So, what their saying is they're still planning to do a Mickey Mouse movie?

TsWade2 wrote:So, what they're saying is they're still planning to do a Mickey Mouse movie?

Not exactly. He said there have been two proposed features starring Mickey recently at Disney but both are currently on hold. They're no longer being actively developed.