DVDizzy Forum

The ONLY thing I find weird about Disney adapting Mort as a full-length animated feature, is that there's already been animated adaptions of Discworld novels. Even the video games had animated sequences, as well as a musical number.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fczjCi73So8" frameborder="0"></iframe>

So as much as I'd LOVE to see Disney do their own version, I guess what I'm trying to say is, it feels... redundant?
It's like if Disney decided to do an musical animated adaption of Thumbelina, when the Bluth version is already pretty well-known.

I'm really happy to hear that Mort may find a revival. I've gotten really into Pratchett's Discworld novels recently and think it will be really interesting on how it's done. I'm really interested in seeing how they might do the character designs, since Pratchett's longtime illustrator Paul Kidby has long given us clear ideas of how Mort and Death look in the novels.

Mort:






Death and Binky


And Death and the Grim Squeaker

Dr. Frankenollie, of course you would say something like "personally, I don't think there really is the kind of Disney Essence you speak of the more and more I think about it." Everyone probably already thought of Disney as this whole thing, that's real, that isn't just Disney because of a name but because of what it does, the Disney Essence that makes them unique from than the other animation studios that entertain both kids and adults and are successful, but then, people may not understand what I'm pointing out, and then, because I keep trying to explain it, they get mad at me and don't like me, so they give up and just say that don't think there is an essence of this studio anymore.

And you fail to notice that the first five films Walt made were all about nature, animals, fairy tales, and fantasy. Yes, they had some different things about them to set them apart, otherwise they would be the exact same, but there is no ignoring they have similarities!

And if Disney just brings out the child of all of us...um, don't other things do that too? Disney is something more than that, otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell Disney from the other things that bring out the child in us. Disney does it in a Disney way, with other factors that make it just Disney. Or is Disney to you the only thing that really brings out the child in us?

And what is the deal with you using words like dumb and stupid to me? The first time you ever talked to me, you said I had "stupid demands". First of all, that is wrong because I never demanded anything. I got offended by something someone said, so I asked them very very politely if they would change what they said. I didn't say a single mean thing to them, and not a single thing at all to you, and yet the first thing you ever did to me was attack me and use the word "stupid".

So because of that, that actually would make you the stupid jerk, not being able to argue without using such offensive words to hurt and distract from whatever argument you may not be good a forming, but if you apologize to me, then maybe we can finally stop this animosity between us, because I do not want to do anything that might hurt you, but I am merely acting towards you the way you first acted towards me.

I will even say please. Please apologize to me, and I will apologize for anything I did towards you that you wish me to...well, depending on what it is. I think it's fair enough what I'm asking of you, though.

estefan wrote:Hell, there are subtle adult jokes in Disney animated features, too. The Genie's dialogue in Aladdin is filled with them.

You don't see the difference between Simpson and Futurama's adult humor and the subtle adult humor (I wouldn't even call it that!) used in Disney's films?

And remember, I said it is the principle of the thing, the priniciple of not hiring people who's past work was so foul and so far from what Disney is, because Walt never hired people like that.

If you haven't, I highly recommend watching the Futurama episodes "Jurassic Bark" and "Luck of the Fryish." Both are incredibly sad episodes, with as much heart as a lot of Disney features.* Futurama also isn't typical Seth McFarlane-style shock humour. The comedy on that show is smart and most of the time, doesn't fall into lowest-common-denominator PG-13 humour.

*By the way, before you throw a fit, I'm not saying those episodes are like Disney. I'm just saying they have heart-warming stories. And aren't most of the Disney classics heart-warming stories?

Yes you are right about that, those shows are certainly better than some worse things out their like anything Seth McFarlane. Jurassic Bark was so, so sad, like omg more aching than the kind Disney usually does, but Luck of the Fryish does seem closer to the kind of touching heart Disney goes for, even if not in the Disney way.

The Simpsons did say Disney was "an evil corporation in their movie", though, with Bart pretending to wear mouse ears.

I don't know, I just feel like the Simpsons and Futurama are still just a little too different and mature...at least you made me feel a little better about it, but I still am not convinced that it's not un-Disney to hire them. I'm sorry that I can't shake feeling like that's how it is...

Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie, of course you would say something like "personally, I don't think there really is the kind of Disney Essence you speak of the more and more I think about it." Everyone probably already thought of Disney as this whole thing, that's real, that isn't just Disney because of a name but because of what it does, the Disney Essence that makes them unique from than the other animation studios that entertain both kids and adults and are successful, but then, people may not understand what I'm pointing out, and then, because I keep trying to explain it, they get mad at me and don't like me, so they give up and just say that don't think there is an essence of this studio anymore.

And you fail to notice that the first five films Walt made were all about nature, animals, fairy tales, and fantasy. Yes, they had some different things about them to set them apart, otherwise they would be the exact same, but there is no ignoring they have similarities!

Whilst the plots and settings involved nature, animals, fairy tales and fantasy in all of them, they didn't revolve around those ideas and all used those styles and themes in unique ways; at the core of the first five films, however, they were all very different-Snow White is a sweet, anti-Depression era movie that is similar to the Wizard of Oz, Pinocchio is a dark fantasy adventure about an innocent little boy learing about the world, Fantasia is incredibly experimental and fascinatingly surreal, Dumbo is a short but powerful drama with a light-hearted ending, and Bambi is all about the beauties and tragedies of life, as well as growing up and falling in love.

Disney Duster wrote:And if Disney just brings out the child of all of us...um, don't other things do that too? Disney is something more than that, otherwise we wouldn't be able to tell Disney from the other things that bring out the child in us. Disney does it in a Disney way, with other factors that make it just Disney. Or is Disney to you the only thing that really brings out the child in us?

First of all, don't use '...um,...' because it's rude, obnoxius and irritating. Secondly, while other things do that too, in my humble opinion, Disney does it best; Disney is part of my childhood, its movies, its characters, its television series, its theme parks, etc. I might be nothing more than a nostalgic, doddering old fool, but nevertheless Walt himself always talked about how he intended to bring out the child in all of us with all his movies (as well as being innovative). When Walt started making movies and had Disneyland built, he wasn't thinking 'I want everyone to experience fairy tales' or 'I want everything to watch something involving fantasy and nature', he wanted to make us feel like an innocent, carefree child once again. That's what makes Disney so unique, and so special, not because of your 'Disney Essence', but because it gives the opportunity to be wholly innocent and without a care or worry in the world.

Disney Duster wrote:And what is the deal with you using words like dumb and stupid to me? The first time you ever talked to me, you said I had "stupid demands". First of all, that is wrong because I never demanded anything. I got offended by something someone said, so I asked them very very politely if they would change what they said. I didn't say a single mean thing to them, and not a single thing at all to you, and yet the first thing you ever did to me was attack me and use the word "stupid".

Look, if you post something stupid on here, everyone else (including me) should be allowed to call you out on it; that's part of discussion. Secondly, you were making stupid requests; fine, they might not have been proper demands as I originally stated, but nonetheless what you were saying was stupid: you were asking somebody who had simply said that the 'Brave' trailer looked like old Disney to edit their post because you disagreed with them. Does that mean I could simply ask you 'very very politely' to stop stating your opinions and say you agree with me? If it did, I would've asked you to do so a long time ago. When other posters pointed out the stupidity of your requests, you said that everyone was being 'so mean' to you and (as I previously said) acted like a complete and utter drama queen.

Disney Duster wrote:So because of that, that actually would make you the stupid jerk, not being able to argue without using such offensive words to hurt and distract from whatever argument you may not be good a forming, but if you apologize to me, then maybe we can finally stop this animosity between us, because I do not want to do anything that might hurt you, but I am merely acting towards you the way you first acted towards me.

I'm most certainly not the stupid jerk; what have I done that makes me a jerk? What offensive words have I used? I haven't swore, or used derogatory slurs, I have just pointed out the repetetive silliness in all your posts.

Disney Duster wrote:I will even say please. Please apologize to me, and I will apologize for anything I did towards you that you wish me to...well, depending on what it is. I think it's fair enough what I'm asking of you, though.

Okay; I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings. I am not sorry for disagreeing with you, however, and will continue to disagree with your opinions. As you said that you would apologise for anything you did towards me, please apologise to me for being so incredibly immature and melodramatic when it comes to a simple Internet discussion board. If you do not apologise to me like I did to you, then I shall edit this post and get rid of my apology.

enigmawing wrote:I'd get out the Milk Buds, but people seem to have gotten sick of them.

I could use some now.

Why do I participate in these debates? Because they're fun... for a while. And then after a while, I quit again. I know I'm not gonna change Duster's mind and that's not my objective at all. I just like to point out the inconsistencies and contradictions in his reasoning. I'm always curious to know how he'll react to it. His comments are sometimes so mind-blowingly 'out there' that it fascinates me.

Disney Duster wrote:The Simpsons did say Disney was "an evil corporation in their movie", though, with Bart pretending to wear mouse ears.

Well, if you look at the way they're doing business in the Third World... they *are*.

Disney Duster wrote:I don't know, I just feel like the Simpsons and Futurama are still just a little too different and mature...at least you made me feel a little better about it, but I still am not convinced that it's not un-Disney to hire them. I'm sorry that I can't shake feeling like that's how it is...

But nobody is saying these people will bring Simpsons-style humor to Disney! So why does it matter *at all* where those people have worked before? I couldn't care less even if these people made porn movies before coming to Disney! It's the product they turn out for *Disney* what matters. Nothing else matters. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

Oh, I know, I know: it's not made by Walt personally nor was it made in the 1990's when you were a kid so therefore, it must be bad!

singerguy04 wrote:It's ok to derail multiple threads at once for the same argument, but not ok for someone to share how they feel about it? [...] I understand it's all about opinions and so forth, and I'm not trying to say that you can't discuss it at all. I know I said I'm tired of it, and I am, but why does this one issue seem to take over so much of the forum. For years I HAVE been just scrolling over it and ignoring it all, but is it wrong for me to say that IMO it's a little silly? [...] Goliath, I will never ask you to defend yourself for your opinion. You have every right to it! But, then why does it seem that you are in response trying to make me defend mine? I don't agree with the endless posts that just repeat what's been said over and over in the same thread. Is that very different than you responding to Duster at all? [...]

It's extremely different. When I'm responding to Duster, I'm participating in a discussion about a Disney-related topic. All you're doing is bitching about people discussing Disney-related topics, which is actually the purpose of this forum. And I call it 'bitching', because you take a very hostile tone and you're basically trying to order other people to stop discussing. And because you can't let it rest, but have to go on and on about it. You've made your point: you don't like the debates. But why do you share that with us, if for no other reason to try to stop us from debating? If you really think we should not stop debating, like you said in your third post, then why did you make twom post prior complaining about the debating and suggesting we make an essay for Duster and be done with it? That's very contradictory.

Of course you have every right to voice your opinion, but ask yourself: what does it add? So you don't like the debating... now what? What does this bit of knowledge add to the thread? if you're not liking the debating, then why not share something related to 'Mort'? Why not come up with an alternative? Why not try to steer the thread in another direction? So far, all you've done is bring negativity into the thread. In fact, your lectures have only derailed the thread even further from the subject of 'Mort'. While it can be argued that the debate with Duster touches upon the issue of 'Mort' being suitable material for Disney or not, your little intervention has nothing to do with 'Mort' at all. All your lecturing has done, is letting the thread drift in exactly the direction you don't want it to go. It's been counter-productive.

singerguy04 wrote:Now, this is going to be my last post on the matter but I needed to say something so that you, Goliath, weren't under the impression that I caved to your ignorant post above.

You really think I pay attention to such things?

Look, I like you too and I wish you would post more, but I can't help telling it like I sees it.

I think I've read enough arguments for and against the Disney essence to last me a while for now. Could we talk about Mort, instead of argue about impossible-to-prove points? The argument won't go anywhere, anyway. You guys could even make your own boxing ring of a thread and go there whenever you feel like slugging it out, sparing us the necessity of skimming through endless futile arguments. I thought there must have been acual NEWS about Mort when I saw it was tops on the Discussion Board.

PrincePhillipFan wrote:I'm really happy to hear that Mort may find a revival. I've gotten really into Pratchett's Discworld novels recently and think it will be really interesting on how it's done. I'm really interested in seeing how they might do the character designs, since Pratchett's longtime illustrator Paul Kidby has long given us clear ideas of how Mort and Death look in the novels.

Mort:

I've always meant to read the books, but they seem so daunting. There's just so many of them. Would it be a problem to read Mort first?

I really like that picture of Mort. I can totally see a Disneyfied version of that picture in my head. The style would be a good fit, imo.

Linden wrote:I think I've read enough arguments for and against the Disney essence to last me a while for now. Could we talk about Mort, instead of argue about impossible-to-prove points? The argument won't go anywhere, anyway. You guys could even make your own boxing ring of a thread and go there whenever you feel like slugging it out, sparing us the necessity of skimming through endless futile arguments. I thought there must have been acual NEWS about Mort when I saw it was tops on the Discussion Board.

But there hasn't been ANY news about 'Mort' for the last half year or so. Only unconfirmed rumors made by anonimous nobodies, which somehow get everybody excited and speculating for days on end... until the rumor gets replaced by a totally contradictory rumor, and that one gets speculated upon... and so forth and so forth.

Goliath wrote:I could use some now.

Linden wrote:I've always meant to read the books, but they seem so daunting. There's just so many of them. Would it be a problem to read Mort first?

I really like that picture of Mort. I can totally see a Disneyfied version of that picture in my head. The style would be a good fit, imo.

I'd really recommend Mort if you're just starting since that is one of the most easily accesible ones. Either that or Going Postal.

Dr Frankenollie...you and me pretty much keep pointing out that the films of Walt Disney have both similarities and differences. I am trying to point out the similarities to try and figure out the Disney essence. And why? Because Disney needs to have an identity that sets it apart from all the other studios out there that might also bring out the child in others. Identity is something people have a hard time talking about or even figuring out, but I don't want to give up on it.

Disney did talk about bringing out the child in us all, but he also has quote about using fairy tales or old tales, using animals, the way his studio uses emotion. Yes, you can not believe me just because I don't have them all here, but don't call me stupid for it, I just can't dig every single on of them up right now, it is your choice to not believe me but at least I can rest because I know I've seen them and other people here have.

And how is Disney completely innocent when some of their stuff is rather sad, scary, or even mature and some of it only fully being appreciated by adults? I'm just saying Disney is more than just bringing out the child, the Disney essence is complicated. I don't know why you don't want to believe Disney has an essence that gives it an identity, but whatever.

Now, for the names you called me. You say you were calling it like you see it, you thought I was doing something stupid, so you just said that? Well, if I see you acting a like a stupid jerk, that means I can call you that, too! But I only did that after you called me hurtful words in many, many posts first, before I said a single word to you. It is common, common knowledge that words like "stupid", "idiotic" and "insane" are hurtful words, and you used them on me when you did not have to, when you shouldn't have. It doesn't matter if you personally think those words were correct to use, that is still something of opinion that polite people are not supposed to use because they hurt.

I never used those words to you before. Yet, now you want me to apologize for acting a certain way. Here's the thing: Your words were hurtful words, while the way you said I was acting was not hurtful. Let's quickly look at what you said I did:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:you were asking somebody who had simply said that the 'Brave' trailer looked like old Disney to edit their post because you disagreed with them.

No, I was asking them if they would please change it because it hurt me.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Does that mean I could simply ask you 'very very politely' to stop stating your opinions and say you agree with me?

That is not what I did either, see above!

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I will even say please. Please apologize to me, and I will apologize for anything I did towards you that you wish me to...well, depending on what it is. I think it's fair enough what I'm asking of you, though.

Okay; I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings. I am not sorry for disagreeing with you, however, and will continue to disagree with your opinions. As you said that you would apologise for anything you did towards me, please apologise to me for being so incredibly immature and melodramatic when it comes to a simple Internet discussion board. If you do not apologise to me like I did to you, then I shall edit this post and get rid of my apology.

Since you did aplogize, now I won't call you a stupid jerk anymore, and I aplogize for that if it hurt you since it's the only thing I did that could have possibly hurt you. Now hopefully things will be better between us.

Disney Duster wrote:Dr Frankenollie...you and me pretty much keep pointing out that the films of Walt Disney have both similarities and differences. I am trying to point out the similarities to try and figure out the Disney essence. And why? Because Disney needs to have an identity that sets it apart from all the other studios out there that might also bring out the child in others. Identity is something people have a hard time talking about or even figuring out, but I don't want to give up on it.

Disney did talk about bringing out the child in us all, but he also has quote about using fairy tales or old tales, using animals, the way his studio uses emotion. Yes, you can not believe me just because I don't have them all here, but don't call me stupid for it, I just can't dig every single on of them up right now, it is your choice to not believe me but at least I can rest because I know I've seen them and other people here have.

I was saying that Disney is the best at bringing out the child in all of us, and besides, why does it 'need' a specific, unique identity to differentiate it from other animation studios that could also bring out the child in all of us? But for whatever reason you think it 'needs' to have a unique identity, well it already does as I've said over and over.

And about what you said about Walt saying he used fairy tales; what about Davy Crockett, or Zorro? What about all his live-action movies and his other television series? He didn't just want to base his entertainment around fairy tales and animals, he wanted to create brilliant, enchanting new worlds that could excite and entertain both the young and the young at heart. The reasons why Disney used animals so frequently are numerous; first of all, they were easier to animate than humans, because (as Milt Kahl once wisely said) people would criticise the design of humans doing things audiences are used to seeing, but when it's animals doing human things the worry of being realistic disappears for the animators. Secondly, animals are more appealing due to their cuddliness, and then there's the fact that most cartoon characters around the time Walt started, so the animators did the same and, as a result, it became the niche they settled themselves in.

Disney Duster wrote:And how is Disney completely innocent when some of their stuff is rather sad, scary, or even mature and some of it only fully being appreciated by adults? I'm just saying Disney is more than just bringing out the child, the Disney essence is complicated. I don't know why you don't want to believe Disney has an essence that gives it an identity, but whatever.

I never said it was completely innocent; I said Disney brought out the innocent child in all of us, but NEVER said that Disney itself was innocent.

Disney Duster wrote:Now, for the names you called me. You say you were calling it like you see it, you thought I was doing something stupid, so you just said that? Well, if I see you acting a like a stupid jerk, that means I can call you that, too! But I only did that after you called me hurtful words in many, many posts first, before I said a single word to you. It is common, common knowledge that words like "stupid", "idiotic" and "insane" are hurtful words, and you used them on me when you did not have to, when you shouldn't have. It doesn't matter if you personally think those words were correct to use, that is still something of opinion that polite people are not supposed to use because they hurt.

No, I NEVER used the words 'stupid' and 'idiotic' to describe you; I used them to describe some of the things you said and some of the opinions you have, but I NEVER used them to describe you personally. Prove I did, because I did not use them to describe you personally. When I apologised to you, I was saying sorry if I hurt your feelings; I wasn't admitting that I insulted you.

And when I said that you were 'clearly insane', I was using a hyperbole.

Disney Duster wrote:

Dr Frankenollie wrote:you were asking somebody who had simply said that the 'Brave' trailer looked like old Disney to edit their post because you disagreed with them.

No, I was asking them if they would please change it because it hurt me.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Does that mean I could simply ask you 'very very politely' to stop stating your opinions and say you agree with me?

That is not what I did either, see above!

How could you have been hurt by somebody saying that the Brave trailer looked like the old Disney? There was nothing rude, racist, sexist, homophobic or discriminatory in their comment whatsoever, and how you possibly found that hurtful is beyond me. Even if it wasn't directed you (and it wasn't).

Disney Duster wrote:Since you did aplogize, now I won't call you a stupid jerk anymore, and I aplogize for that if it hurt you since it's the only thing I did that could have possibly hurt you. Now hopefully things will be better between us.

Actually, I wasn't offended by you calling me a stupid jerk an awful lot. If you reread my post, I asked you to apologise for your stupid and melodramatic posts. Unless you apologise for your posts, I will remove my apology.

But you have personally attacked him several times in the past two posts. You called him “immature,“ “melodramatic,“ and “drama queen," and that was not referring to posts but a poster. I'm not acting like I'm perfect or that I haven't made them in the past/etc. (these discussions can be frustrating ), but they are personal attacks. The same hyperbole you're using could be what's making you think DDuster's a drama queen. A lot of times text can come across more outrageous than the poster actually intends. Also, I wonder how calling someone else's posts stupid--while not a personal attack--actually contributes to a discussion about Disney Essence (copyrighted)?

And I honestly agree with singerguy04. The only reason this seems to be even vaguely related to the topic is because it's about "Disney." If that were all it meant to be on-topic, this same discussion could go in any thread in the Disney Discussion section. I know mods are busy and don't like to step in, so I don't expect them, but being on-topic would be nice.

(If this thread were actually on-topic, it'd be dead right now...just like the movie is. That might would be a relief. )

PrincePhillipFan wrote:

This looks just like Eminem.

Disney Duster wrote:No, I was asking them if they would please change it because it hurt me.

OMG, someone saying Brave looks like "old Disney" *HURTS* you?????!!!!!!! I gotta agree with Dr. Frankenollie: that is stupid.

I'm going to agree with Goliath.

Look, I find it hurtful sometimes when I hear negative comments about my favorite films.
But I don't make a big stink about it and ask "please take back what you said about Pocahontas, it really hurts me that you dissed my favorite Disney movie".

Disney's Divinity wrote:But you have personally attacked him several times in the past two posts. You called him “immature,“ “melodramatic,“ and “drama queen," and that was not referring to posts but a poster. I'm not acting like I'm perfect or that I haven't made them in the past/etc. (these discussions can be frustrating ), but they are personal attacks. The same hyperbole you're using could be what's making you think DDuster's a drama queen. A lot of times text can come across more outrageous than the poster actually intends. Also, I wonder how calling someone else's posts stupid--while not a personal attack--actually contributes to a discussion about Disney Essence (copyrighted)?

Disney Duster had said that I called him stupid and idiotic, when in fact (as I said in my previous post) I was referring to his posts-neither he nor I made reference to the fact I called him immature, melodramatic and drama queen; and yes, I admit to calling him all of those things technically, but all are true. Why?

Disney Duster wrote:I didn't do anything mean...please stop being so mean to me...I asked someone if they would do something as nicely as I could, I'm not forcing them, it is up to them and I am awaiting their reply, stop being so mean please...

He overacted in an extremely unnecessary, immature and melodramatic way in the Brave thread, and as Goliath and LySs have said, his post in the first place was stupid.

Goliath wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:No, I was asking them if they would please change it because it hurt me.

OMG, someone saying Brave looks like "old Disney" *HURTS* you?????!!!!!!! I gotta agree with Dr. Frankenollie: that is stupid.

It's not stupid.

It's unintentionally hilarious.... I mean, Disney really hurt my feelings when they spat in the face of Walt and made dreck like Cinderella II.... who do I see for that? I want a formal apology, because my feelings were hurt.

Why is something posted in the Brave topic the hot-topic discussion of the Mort thread, seriously?

I was referring to his posts-neither he nor I made reference to the fact I called him immature, melodramatic and drama queen; and yes, I admit to calling him all of those things technically, but all are true.

What is it to you whether or not he is any of those things? To be honest, you’re coming across that way yourself by dragging on something that was posted, what, a week and a half ago? He does have the same right to post anything he wants just like everyone else does, stupid or not, and at the very least nothing he said was offensive or cruel to anyone. Unlike everything I’m reading here. Of course, people can respond/discuss/etc., but it seems like there’s more focus on how ‘stupid’ something was said than what was actually being said. *Notice, I’m not talking about anything related to the neverending Disney Essence debate, which I can't say I really agree with DDuster on.

(I was actually considering not posting this, but this thread already feels like a tag-team match, so why not.)