DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:We already had examples of how Walt would have done a fairy tale, three times, and the Renaissance fairly kept to that. The Princess and the Frog all but pissed on it. Tradition, tradition, tradition. It's a good thing and it ensures Disneyness. Don't piss on it.

Hey, Duster - Walt made a LOT of wacky absurdist shit, especially with Ward Kimball at the helm. And The Princess and the Frog was god-damned glorious. I'd go farther about how hard that movie kicked ass, but then people would start calling me names again.

Rudy Matt wrote:And The Princess and the Frog was god-damned glorious. I'd go farther about how hard that movie kicked ass, but then people would start calling me names again.

Nobody ever called you names over PatF. They (including myself) merely criticized PatF with arguments. You couldn't handle it and started to cry... Not our fault.

I rushed things. Only two months of stalking before diving. I was just too Disney-horny.

anyway, a few examples of why PatF shouldnt be considered un-disney JUST for how different it is from the Frog Prince.

1. Snow White: In many versions, the Dwarves were robbers, the Mirror had some relasionship with the sun or moon(IDK much about that), in an Albanian version, she lives with 40 Dragons, her teacher urges her to kill her stepmother, and another version with two jealous sisters who try to kill her. the Queen disguises herself three times in the Grimm version, the final being the Apple. the Prince wasnt in the beginning, and the kiss didnt happen and the piece of poisoned apple was forced out and the Queen is forced to dance in heated iron shoes until dead.

Not very romantic.

2. Pinnochio: the Original story had Geppetto being a poor puppeteer-not a clockmaker, or a toymaker. It's said he dislikes children, and Pinocchio gets his feet burned off overnight from some punishment by the neighbor. He kills Jiminy Cricket, and the Fox and Cat tell him to plant a money tree. The Fairy had Turqoise Hair and is more of a sister, and there is no mention of Strombolli, or the coachman. Pleasure Island is The Land Of Play, and that's after Pinoch's been working on a farm and doing well in school. not to mention the title character's a real jerk at first.

Since I dont have the time, I'll just throw a couple more mentions in:

Sleeping Beauty, what ends up in the movie is only half the original story. remember the century passing before she finds a prince and gets married. well, he finds her, and then they have kids and everything.

The Jungle Book: Walt ripped that apart and gave it full reconstructive surgery. it was a thriller, remember, and not a very family-friendly book.

The earliest I remember using the site is 2005, but actually I think I was on it at least a year before that.

However, I never bothered to look at the message boards until about 2006, so I lurked around for about a year.

This thread has gone through an interesting evolution in discussion!

ajmrowland wrote:I rushed things. Only two months of stalking before diving. I was just too Disney-horny.

anyway, a few examples of why PatF shouldnt be considered un-disney JUST for how different it is from the Frog Prince.

1. Snow White: In many versions, the Dwarves were robbers, the Mirror had some relasionship with the sun or moon(IDK much about that), in an Albanian version, she lives with 40 Dragons, her teacher urges her to kill her stepmother, and another version with two jealous sisters who try to kill her. the Queen disguises herself three times in the Grimm version, the final being the Apple. the Prince wasnt in the beginning, and the kiss didnt happen and the piece of poisoned apple was forced out and the Queen is forced to dance in heated iron shoes until dead.

Not very romantic.

2. Pinnochio: the Original story had Geppetto being a poor puppeteer-not a clockmaker, or a toymaker. It's said he dislikes children, and Pinocchio gets his feet burned off overnight from some punishment by the neighbor. He kills Jiminy Cricket, and the Fox and Cat tell him to plant a money tree. The Fairy had Turqoise Hair and is more of a sister, and there is no mention of Strombolli, or the coachman. Pleasure Island is The Land Of Play, and that's after Pinoch's been working on a farm and doing well in school. not to mention the title character's a real jerk at first.

Since I dont have the time, I'll just throw a couple more mentions in:

Sleeping Beauty, what ends up in the movie is only half the original story. remember the century passing before she finds a prince and gets married. well, he finds her, and then they have kids and everything.

The Jungle Book: Walt ripped that apart and gave it full reconstructive surgery. it was a thriller, remember, and not a very family-friendly book.

That's Kinda what I was trying to say when someone was saying Disney was straying too far from Rapunzel more than any other fairy tale or film....which these are the exact points I was trying to make. Maybe ironically it was Disney Duster that I was point this out to regarding the rapoince weed or something to that effect

I feel really weird now. I discovered UD the site in December 2003 (Kram needed help with a contest), joined UD the forum in late January 2004 and began posting a week later without ever reading up threads and getting a feel for its members. There was never any stalking period for me.

Goliath wrote:

Escapay wrote:Of course, I'm not saying they should've shunned the Walt Disney Filmmaking 101. And I'm not saying that every movie sucked (this is where Goliath will chime in with The Rescuers).

You beat me to it!

But wouldn't you agree? I'd like to know.

I'll agree that The Rescuers is a bright spot amongst the majority of Disney films from the 1970s. Though I have to confess, it's not a favorite of mine. I don't think I've ever figured out where I'd rank it, simply because I never sat down to rank the films past my top ten (which incidentally includes Robin Hood).

albert

Apparently there's a new trend or clause in joining forums now a days

The Stalk Clause

Well When I joined I had wanted to be in the Secret Santa and Luke told me wait a year and if I was still an avid part of the forums I could be in it and it would be even more fun for me as well. So...I posted and made some friends and learned the term for a slipcover of a movie aka DVD Condom or now I guess they've gone to the LIttle Blue Condom with Blu rays...

Anyway. This site is so wonderful....and of course I feel everyone on this forum is like the family of the Robinsons....dysfunctional at times but at the end of a post we are all like family. espically they way a topic here on Walt beyond the grave turns into a when I joined and Stalk clause joiners and gets totally off topic in a 380 loop

ajmrowland wrote:I was just too Disney-horny.

Maybe it's because it's late and I'm tired. But that is one of the funniest phrases I have ever heard. *sleepy drunk-ish laugh*

disneyboy20022 wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:I rushed things. Only two months of stalking before diving. I was just too Disney-horny.

anyway, a few examples of why PatF shouldnt be considered un-disney JUST for how different it is from the Frog Prince.

1. Snow White: In many versions, the Dwarves were robbers, the Mirror had some relasionship with the sun or moon(IDK much about that), in an Albanian version, she lives with 40 Dragons, her teacher urges her to kill her stepmother, and another version with two jealous sisters who try to kill her. the Queen disguises herself three times in the Grimm version, the final being the Apple. the Prince wasnt in the beginning, and the kiss didnt happen and the piece of poisoned apple was forced out and the Queen is forced to dance in heated iron shoes until dead.

Not very romantic.

2. Pinnochio: the Original story had Geppetto being a poor puppeteer-not a clockmaker, or a toymaker. It's said he dislikes children, and Pinocchio gets his feet burned off overnight from some punishment by the neighbor. He kills Jiminy Cricket, and the Fox and Cat tell him to plant a money tree. The Fairy had Turqoise Hair and is more of a sister, and there is no mention of Strombolli, or the coachman. Pleasure Island is The Land Of Play, and that's after Pinoch's been working on a farm and doing well in school. not to mention the title character's a real jerk at first.

Since I dont have the time, I'll just throw a couple more mentions in:

Sleeping Beauty, what ends up in the movie is only half the original story. remember the century passing before she finds a prince and gets married. well, he finds her, and then they have kids and everything.

The Jungle Book: Walt ripped that apart and gave it full reconstructive surgery. it was a thriller, remember, and not a very family-friendly book.

That's Kinda what I was trying to say when someone was saying Disney was straying too far from Rapunzel more than any other fairy tale or film....which these are the exact points I was trying to make. Maybe ironically it was Disney Duster that I was point this out to regarding the rapoince weed or something to that effect

yeah, i was just making examples. there are a ton of others.

and thank you margos!

Ajmrowland, you, like many others, have missed quite a few things.

I specifically pointed out how The Princess and the Frog was changedfar more drastically than before, being set in a modern time when the fairy tale clearly wouldn't have happened. It veered from the story entirely, only the beginning of the film is like the Frog Prince.

One example how it is not the Frog Prince is that in the film their is a storybook that holds the story of The Frog Prince. That means the story already happened before this new story began. And for extra measure, remember how Walt had the fairy tales happened in books like that. The story not happening in that book just adds to that. It was also based on a book called The Frog Princess, a totally new story from The Frog prince.

Besides The Princess and the Frog, Rapunzel is also FARTHER from the way Walt changed the past fairy tales because the protagonists bakgrounds are completely changed. The peasant Rapunzel is now a princess and her prince is now a bandit. But also they filmakers said the story of Rapunzel kind of really only is in the beginning, and the rest of the film is them going on this new adventure, new story, that the original tale never went on.

I AM approving VERY MUCH of the artists putting themselves into their own work.

I was saying Lilo & Stitch, and quite a few recent Disney films and decisions, show a lack of considering why they are making these films at Disney. They need to consider WHY THEY ARE MAKING IT AT DISNEY instead of ANY OTHER STUDIO is the point I am making. They need to keep films Disney more than just being family friendly because LOTS of studios are family friendly! They need to try and figure out...how can we make a new story...that Walt MIGHT have liked. Some CONSIDERATION and THOUGHT. Not just whatever they hell they feel like.

Heartless, your name fits very well!

You are EXAGGERATING what I want. I don't want things done the EXACT same ways, I want more effort trying to get the Disney essence. Pretty much, all I have to tell you is read what I said above. They merely need to come up with whatever ideas they want, and then consider, would Walt have approved something like that?

Otherwise, I guess we should just spit on this dead guy, just forget about him. Why don't we even change his studio name, it's not his anymore, why are we doing ANYTHING IN HIS NAME?!

As for The Princess and the Frog, yea they based that on The Frog Princess. Just read what I said above for more.

Heartless wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:I started saying "I think" Walt would, meaning I tried to amend it and it became my current. But now that I think I about it, I still stand by the "I know" because I don't just think it, I feel I know. It's just the truth and I'm going to be honest about these feelings here.

But that's NOT THE TRUTH. No one on earth can possibly ever know what Walt Disney would ever feel about anything in the past 45 years. EVER. That goes the same for anyone that has died.

I said that I FEEL IT IS THE TRUTH. You missed things, just like everyone else!

Disney Duster wrote: I was saying Lilo & Stitch, and quite a few recent Disney films and decisions, show a lack of considering why they are making these films at Disney. They need to consider WHY THEY ARE MAKING IT AT DISNEY instead of ANY OTHER STUDIO is the point I am making. They need to keep films Disney more than just being family friendly because LOTS of studios are family friendly! They need to try and figure out...how can we make a new story...that Walt MIGHT have liked. Some CONSIDERATION and THOUGHT. Not just whatever they hell they feel like.

I personally think the directors should be less pre-occupied over thinking about what Walt might have liked and instead concentrate on making a great film, which I think Sanders succeeded at. And during the late 90s, it seemed other studios did pretty well at doing Disney. The Prince of Egypt pretty much did well where efforts like Pocahontas or Hercules seemed to fail at (interesting characters, no animal sidekicks, a great story).

And like all of us, even Walt Disney had opinions that didn't gel with the rest of the general public. You know Alfred Hitchcock's classic film Psycho? Needless to say, Walt was not a fan. I think he wouldn't have wanted the future filmmakers working at his studios to think whether his ashes would approve of their work.

I'd just like to say, why are you fixating so much on Walt's fairytales Duster? Whenever I bring up the "folly" or WDFA repositioning itself for the modern audience via animated fairytales, its constantly remarked that fairytales were really only a small proportion of Walt's animated films. Which is true. Especially if you don't count Pinocchio as a fairytale which I know is debatable.

Snow White: Fairytale
Pinocchio: Fairytale/story adaptation
Fantasia: "concert feature"
Dumbo: More of less original given the small size of the story it was adapted from
Bambi: story adaptation
Saludos Amigos/The Three Caballeros: I find it unfair to judge these, given the financial and political state of the world at the time and the reasons for making them... likewise...
Make Mine Music/Melody Time: ...for the same reasons
Fun and Fancy Free: fairytale of sorts/story adaptation
The Adventure of Ichabod and Mr Toad: story adaptation/story adaptation
Cinderella: story adaptation
Alice in Wonderland: story adaptation
Peter Pan: story adaptation
Lady and the Tramp: original?
Sleeping Beauty: fairytale
101 Dalmatians: story adaptation
The Sword in the Stone: story adaptation
The Jungle Book: story adaptation

Of those films we have 3 (4 if you count Pinocchio) fairytale films and one extended short with Mickey and the Beanstalk also based on a fairytale.

We also have films exploring variously: the brutality of nature, kidnapping, surrealism, class divides, classical music and more, containing stories set in medieval times, the modern day, the (then) recent past and the imagination. We have animated sequences filled with jazz music, sword duelling, dog-fighting, car chasing and more.

Just from those films alone its impossible to see what Walt's preferences were - they encompass everything (including animated eye-popping!) In fact, looking at the films and their time or release and knowing what we know about Disney's finance at the time - a cynic may suggest that while Walt may of had qualms about sequels, he had no problems revisiting the genre of his most profitable films when he needed the money! The fact Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty were made may have been more about capturing past success then because he personally liked the stories and wanted to make the films.

But there's more. Look at Walt's live action films - a process he was much more enthusiastic and involved with since the Disney live-action film studio was set-up - leaving his animators more or less to themselves for the last few animated films of his era.

Treasure Island, The Story of Robin Hood, The Sword and the Rose, Rob Roy Highland Rogue, 2,000 Leagues Under the Sea... The "Real Life Adventures" series... up to films like That Darned Cat, Shaggy Dog, The Parent Trap.

Most of Walt's films were adventure based; fact based or modern day based. Of all his live-action films none can be classed as fairytales, with Darby O'Gill and Babes in Toyland being the closest. Close, but no cigar.

Viewing all of walts films and output (including the serials on Disneyland and the Mickey Mouse Club) you get a better picture of what Walt (probably) would and would not approve of. The animated films themselves were just a small percentage of the content Walt created or helped to create, the the fairytale animated films even less.

What is interesting is that some of Walt's choices are quite near the bone - Treasure Island, Kidnapped, The Sword and the Rose... they're all quite violent stories originally. Same with the True Life Adventures. They may not show predators killing and eating prey, but the fact is there, out of sight. The Parent Trap is about a divorced family for crying out loud.

The fact is times were different then. If wasn't just Walt's standards, it was society's standards as a whole. Do we know how much Walt was conforming to society's rules rather than his own? By all accounts it would appear that he did to some extent realise the importance of staying within certain accepted bounds - none of his later animated films were as "scary" as Snow White or Pinocchio for example.

If Walt was alive today, who's to say he wouldn't have pushed the realism further on Treasure Island? Included a bit more violence? Showed more the consequences of life and death fights? Being as Walt would be competing with BBC's Planet Earth et al, can you say for sure his True Life Adventures wouldn't show animals killing other animals? Or animals at least eating other animals? And being as the Parent Trap did address divorce, could it be Walt would address more social issues of the time? Would Walt have made films about gang culture? About drug abuse?

The fact is nobody here can say, and any fact you pull-up from his animated films can just as likely be refuted by his live action films:

Treaure Island means he would have approved of Treasure Planet
20,000 Leagues under the Sea means he would have approved of Atlantis
The Parent Trap means he would have approved of Lilo and Stitch
His love of adventure fiction means he would have approved of Tarzan
The wacky comedy of The Shaggy Dog means he would have approved of The Emperor's New Groove

its a pointless conversation, which nobody can win or loose because - like most long and complex texts, there's various meanings and interpretations we can choose to discover when analysing his creative output.

2099net wrote:Treasure Island, The Story of Robin Hood, The Sword and the Rose, Rob Roy Highland Rogue, 2,000 Leagues Under the Sea... The "Real Life Adventures" series... up to films like That Darned Cat, Shaggy Dog, The Parent Trap.

Most of Walt's films were adventure based; fact based or modern day based. Of all his live-action films none can be classed as fairytales, with Darby O'Gill and Babes in Toyland being the closest. Close, but no cigar.

Plus films like BlackBeard's Ghost...that was based on an at the time old time comes to life in the modern world of the time the movie was made....so really it's not that far off from films being made today.....Sorceror's Apprentice using Merlin and stuff....there are movies that Disney made based on Merlin that were live action when Walt Was involved very much. Witch Moutain took place in a modern day era....for the time the film was made....not too far off from Race To Witch mountain....that was more recently made....you really got me thinking that a lot of Disney's today live action films are somewhat dopplegangers of the live action of the 50s - 70s....

estefan wrote:

Disney Duster wrote: I was saying Lilo & Stitch, and quite a few recent Disney films and decisions, show a lack of considering why they are making these films at Disney. They need to consider WHY THEY ARE MAKING IT AT DISNEY instead of ANY OTHER STUDIO is the point I am making. They need to keep films Disney more than just being family friendly because LOTS of studios are family friendly! They need to try and figure out...how can we make a new story...that Walt MIGHT have liked. Some CONSIDERATION and THOUGHT. Not just whatever they hell they feel like.

I personally think the directors should be less pre-occupied over thinking about what Walt might have liked and instead concentrate on making a great film, which I think Sanders succeeded at. And during the late 90s, it seemed other studios did pretty well at doing Disney. The Prince of Egypt pretty much did well where efforts like Pocahontas or Hercules seemed to fail at (interesting characters, no animal sidekicks, a great story).

Dreamworks did 'pretty well at doing Disney' with The Prince of Egypt? I thought their motto for this movie was to do what Disney would never dare to do. Please explain why you think The Prince of Egypt pretty much did well where efforts like Pocahontas or Hercules seemed to fail at. I for one think that the characters in The Prince of Egypt were not really more interesting than those in the Disney movies you mentioned. There were no animal sidekicks because of the seriousness of the subject matter. is it "Disney" to adapt stories from the Bible to the screen? If so, I propose Disney's next subject for an animated movie should be the biblical story of King David.

Well, with Pocahontas, Disney seemed to try and tell a serious true story, but when your dull main characters are completely over-shadowed by a funny raccoon and your villain is hard to take seriously, that's not a good thing. The Prince of Egypt was epic, could be taken seriously, the characters were more interesting and there weren't funny animal sidekicks. Even Martin Short and Steve Martin's somewhat comic relief was subdued and didn't get in the way of the story. That's my personal opinion on the matter, though.

I don't find Disney's Pocahontas a dull character! Anyway, the Disney movie is only very losely related to ('inspired by') a true story, which I think in itself is very interesting, but not real Disney material. (and it's not really 'epic' either) Personally I find TPofE a bit dull at times.

Estefan...no one but Disney can do Disney. If you don't believe that, whatever you Disney "fan", but as a Disney fan, I believe that. But even without that, when I saw the Prince of Egypt or Anastasia or other films that tried to be like Disney, they still felt different to me. I wondered if they were Disney but there was something about them, that I could tell they weren't Disney. It is really only the general undiscerning masses that can't tell.

The people at Disney do need to think of how they can make all their films clearly, well, Disney, and not something any other studio does. And thinking about what Walt might have liked is just one of those ways. They can not know, but they can try, they can think about it. And they can also feel very sure, they can feel confident that they really are making something Walt would be proud of. Not just because lots of people think it's good, but because it's so Disney.

And Lilo & Stitch didn't seem like considering it at all.

Now to Netty. You're back! Yays!

But we must now talk about this. First, I also mentioned Bambi and 101 Dalmatians and other Disney films, not just fairy tales.

However, I have pointed out numerous times that if Walt did one genre three times out of all the other subjects, obviously he liked that genre particularly because he did it two more times than the others! You can say that maybe he only did the fairy tale again and again to get money. Well, maybe with Cinderella, even though he said he strongly identified with that story, she was his favorite heroine, it had his favorite piece of animation, and become one of, if not his most favorite film, but then how do you explain Sleeping Beauty when he didn't need to make money then?

2099net wrote:Cinderella: story adaptation

What?!

I do want to bring up that as far as I know it's hard to pinpoint exactly what a fairy tale is anyway. The Grimm and Perrault stories were called Household Tales or Tales of Times Past. Not only Pinocchio but Peter Pan and even Alice in Wonderland feel like fairy tales to me. In many ways Disney made them fairy tale like.

But most, if not all of those films you listed do have something in common with each other. Magic or fantasy. The first five Disney films all had magic somewhere, except Bambi, which still had princes and royalty, in a forest with talking animals. But any talking animals film still involves fantasy because, well, it's talking animals. Scif-fi is different from just talking animals and fantasy. Now, I might be okay with some sci-fi, but it was the way Lilo & Stitch did it so wacky and violently with aliens that I just felt a strong feeling of negativity from the Walt watching it in my mind.

As for the other things you said Disney covered, yea, all those things could be in fairy tales or in general fantasy films, too.

As for the Live-Action films, well I was talking about the DAC's, but today's Disney should strive to make all their films, animated or live-action, be something only Disney would make. I'm still a little ehhhh about Touchstone and Miramax, but there is indeed a reason they are not called Disney and have their seperate names.

But even if he may have made more live-action films, and shows, and the theme parks, more than the DAC's, the DAC'S have always been the heart and most important thing of the company, in many ways the company.

Roy Disney said they were the heart of the studio and what the studio was all about, it's in the new "Waking Sleeping Beauty" film. There's a reason Walt made the fairy tale castles the center of the theme parks. You can see the picture I'm painting. But as a side note, making live-action films is a lot easier, quicker, and cheaper, not to mention more paid attention to and attended by the public, so him making more of those than animated films has little to do with what he liked the most.

As for Walt complying to the standards of the times, uh, he disliked things like Psycho and other things like that. So, yea, he very much liked what he was making. I mean, maybe his films would have been a little bit more like his earliest features had they not flopped, but there's no doubt Walt liked what he was doing and that's why he made it. If you really think he just made so many of those things just to appease people or make money, well then, well then, you "fan" of Disney.

That list you made of things he made that means he would have approved of certain things...first of all, I never said "this means he would have approved of this" I said "I feel he wouldn't have approved of this and this is some evidence". Next, remember, I was talking about his animated films, so bringing live-action films into it doesn't help.

I did, however, think about 20, 000 Leagues in relation to Atlantis and did consider it but one big thing is 20, 000 Leagues was a book.

AH, there it is. One other thing that Walt clearly did was did movies based on classic stories. Even Lady and the Tramp was slightly based on a story, not to mention even real life Disney worker's anecdotes which are stories. I definately approved of Tarzan, Hercules, and even Mulan and Pocahontas which are legends, like folklore, like fairy tales. The Lion King, claimed to be Disney first original story, still had talking animals, royalty, and magic.

However, Treasure Planet shows exactly why I feel he wouldn't approve. It's the way they did the classic book. They put a modern twist on it and even retitled it, something Walt never ever did.

Next, his wacky comedies were not nearly as wacky as some of things in today's Disney films, in fact, the wackiest, worst humor is found in Disney's recent flops and even Lilo & Stitch which, while not a flop was still not Disney coming back to what it was, no one really thinks of that movie when thinking of Disney.

But also, Disney's wacky comedies are probably not Walt's proudest moments, you know...actually, that goes for a lot of his live-action films. Probably even most. The live-action stuff was more quick and cheap and easy and more appealing to the masses, so he could kind of experiment with them without doing all the stories he really loved that he reserved for particularly special films and the DAC's. That just seems to be what was going on there. And the DAC's have all become timeless and strongly identified with Disney while almost all of that live-action stuff is not remembered these days, just Mary Poppins and Bedknobs and Broomsticks if even that.

Also, the animated films can be controlled more than live-action can beto get the Disney touch. Walt was able to decide a lot more in how everything was in the animated films. Because you are drawing up a whole world, whole actors, you plan and come up with every little detail.

Finally, things like divorce and what not can definately be in Disney films (well, I think), it's just the way they do it, if they do it with wacky violent crude aliens, well then, no.

Maybe if Stitch's transformation into a "good Disney character" didn't feel shoehorned and unbelievable, if not impossible and highly unlikely, probably because he was so un-Disney to begin with.

Ugh..

Duster, just because you "FEEL ALL THIS IS TRUE!!" doesn't make it ACTUALLY true. You "feel" Walt Disney in your head is hating Lilo & Stitch.. but wow, in my head I feel Walt Disney LOVING Lilo & Stitch. The logic you use can be used to counteract anything you say.

Get over the fact that you "feel" you know Walt Disney better than anyone ever could and you "feel" that you can understand exactly what he would have thought about anything better than any of the rest of us. You know EXACTLY what the rest of us know about Walt Disney, so you're opinions about what he would have thought about ANYTHING are just as equal as any of the rest of ours.

Disney Duster wrote:Next, his wacky comedies were not nearly as wacky as some of things in today's Disney films, in fact, the wackiest, worst humor is found in Disney's recent flops and even Lilo & Stitch which, while not a flop was still not Disney coming back to what it was, no one really thinks of that movie when thinking of Disney.

Wacky.. Back decades ago when Walt Disney was making his films, the 'wackiness' was clearly seen in his films and would be considered ALOT more 'wacky' then it would be today. Obviously today's 'wackiness' is less tame then 50+ years ago because TIMES HAVE CHANGED. Half a century has passed.

Plus, how could you say that 'no one really thinks of Lilo & Stitch when thinking of Disney?' Where's any proof of this? Lilo & Stitch has become extremely popular, and just from conversations about Disney in general I've had with people, Lilo & Stitch is always mentioned and how well done it was, especially compared to the recent slew of films released under Disney (this was before Princess and the Frog).

Disney Duster wrote:Maybe if Stitch's transformation into a "good Disney character" didn't feel shoehorned and unbelievable, if not impossible and highly unlikely, probably because he was so un-Disney to begin with.

I feel that Stitch's transformation wasn't shoehorned or unbelievable at all. Please tell me when something "impossible and highly unlikely" HASN'T happened in a Disney film.

And again, you're definition of something being "Disney" or "un-Disney" is not the concrete definition, as others have said. It changes from person to person, and is determined by how Disney films have an effect on each individual. Therefore, there cannot be one definition of the term.

Heartless, I was expressing how I felt, which is what a forum is for, and you seem to not be getting that.

What I was waiting for, and never happened, was for someone to say that they actually did feel Walt would like Lilo & Stitch when trying the same thing I did. If you imagined Walt watching the film, you know it would feel like something he wouldn't like, and would probably even dislike. If you say that you feel he would like it, I'm sorry but I would have a hard time believing you.

Disney's past things were not as crudely rudely wacky as they are today and have been in Disney films. An alien whose arms can go in or out with ooze to pretend to be a dog? No, not Walt's approved wacky. But back then there were things like Warner Bros. which was wackier, and Walt Disney could have done that kind, but didn't. So it has nothing to do with the times.

Yea, most people do not think of Lilo & Stitch when they think of Disney. Most people. It's just true. If you start discussing Disney with people long enough, then maybe it will come up, but it is far from among the first things they think of.

As for impossible things happening in Disney films, yes, lots have, but never something un-Disney and violent and murdering suddenly becoming good and Disney.

And you know that Walt had in his mind a Disney essence, and then he told his animators what to do and approved of things to keep to that Disney essence, so no it does not depend on person to person, people either don't realize what it is or they do.

Otherwise the company wouldn't keep going on about the Disney magic, the Disney magic, the Disney magic that exists and only they make, it'sno other person or studio's magic.

You can have your own feelings or opinion on the Disney magic, but the single thing it really is was made when Walt made the studio, and then it got passed on and today's Disney workers are supposed to tap into it but lately they seem to be saying "screw it".

Disney Duster wrote:Heartless, I was expressing how I felt, which is what a forum is for, and you seem to not be getting that.

And just what was I doing? Expressing how I felt..

Disney Duster wrote:What I was waiting for, and never happened, was for someone to say that they actually did feel Walt would like Lilo & Stitch when trying the same thing I did. If you imagined Walt watching the film, you know it would feel like something he wouldn't like, and would probably even dislike. If you say that you feel he would like it, I'm sorry but I would have a hard time believing you.

The difference between you and me is that I wouldn't even begin to even PRETEND like I would know what Walt Disney would EVER like. Or what Walt Disney would ever feel, or enjoy, or hate, or think. Period.
And no, I dont 'know it would feel like something he wouldn't like,' both for reasons I've stated before, and because I honestly enjoy Lilo & Stitch very much. It is an incredibly well made film in my opinion, with wonderful animation and great music.

What you seem to not be understanding is that no one will ever understand how he would feel about it. It's hard enough to tell how he felt about any of the things while he was alive. Yes, you can guess.. but you'll never be able to prove it to be true, just as I couldn't prove it isn't true.

You may cover everything up by saying this is how 'you truly feel.' But you just told me that I should know Lilo & Stitch would be a movie Walt Disney wouldn't like. WHY?! You make it seem like you know for 100% that he wouldn't like it, and that I should know that he wouldn't.

Disney Duster wrote:Disney's past things were not as crudely rudely wacky as they are today and have been in Disney films. An alien whose arms can go in or out with ooze to pretend to be a dog? No, not Walt's approved wacky. But back then there were things like Warner Bros. which was wackier, and Walt Disney could have done that kind, but didn't. So it has nothing to do with the times.

Disney's past things? Really? Alot of his shorts had a bunch of 'wacky' things, especially for the time they were created. Getting smacked in the head, falling off cliffs.. basically alot of the material used in Warner Bros. cartoons were used in Disney's shorts (and the Warner Bros. cartoons were years after Disney's shorts). Yes, the times DO have alot to do with it. Getting smacked in the face with a wooden plank means almost nothing nowadays.. but back in the 30s and 40s, yes it was alot.. wackier, as you like to put it.

Disney Duster wrote:Yea, most people do not think of Lilo & Stitch when they think of Disney. Most people. It's just true. If you start discussing Disney with people long enough, then maybe it will come up, but it is far from among the first things they think of.

So, you say 'it's just true' and automatically it's true? There's no proof, and you saying "it's just true" is your answer for alot of things.. Seriously, how could you possibly know that 'people' think or don't think of something? You have it in your mind that just because you believe and want something to be true, that it is. No matter what. And your answer is "it's just true" to most things. Examples:

-"And I know he wouldn't have said those things, Escapay. I just know he wouldn't"

-"A lot of what you said is, simply, not true. I am not doing those things you said I was. I just said what I think Disny would do, and how I feel it, and I'm going to honestly say I know many of you feel it, too. "

-"now that I think I about it, I still stand by the "I know" because I don't just think it, I feel I know. It's just the truth and I'm going to be honest about these feelings here."

-"I know you have felt this feeling, that a certain person wouldn't do something, that it doesn't seem like them, it doesn't seem like something they would do. Everyone has felt this feeling. "

.. and so on
You also say you 'just know he would/wouldn't like _______(insert anything here), I feel it's true'

Disney Duster wrote:And you know that Walt had in his mind a Disney essence, and then he told his animators what to do and approved of things to keep to that Disney essence, so no it does not depend on person to person, people either don't realize what it is or they do.

Again, how would I know what Walt Disney had in his mind?

Disney Duster wrote:Otherwise the company wouldn't keep going on about the Disney magic, the Disney magic, the Disney magic that exists and only they make, it'sno other person or studio's magic.

The company keeps going on about Disney magic because of marketing. Why do you think they keep saying that its magic only they can make, and no other studio can duplicate? Because they want people to go to Disney World, buy Disney movies, love the characters and the films.

Disney Duster wrote:You can have your own feelings or opinion on the Disney magic, but the single thing it really is was made when Walt made the studio, and then it got passed on and today's Disney workers are supposed to tap into it but lately they seem to be saying "screw it".

So what you're saying is that I can have my own feelings on the 'Disney magic,' but whatever that is it is wrong if it isn't exactly the single thing that was made when Walt Disney made the studio?
And, how do you know what this single thing was again that is supposed to make up the Disney magic, based on what Walt wanted when he started the company?