DVDizzy Forum

OK, I can't see Walt wanting to make films like Down and Out in Beverly Hills (sex, language) or Pretty Woman (about a prostitute) or Starship Troopers (gore, politics). The point still stands.

Michael Eisner was a bigger money-grubbing jerk than any Jewish stereotype or joke-maker could ever imagine. I think he's your explanation for every film Walt wouldn't have wanted to make.

But then again, for all the talk of what Walt would and wouldn't have approved of... how many of the people saying these things lived inside his head?

But it was also those films that saved Disney. That's what I'm saying. To say everything Disney is just a continuation of Walt is wrong. It's gone way beyond that.

I wouldn;t be against (some) Disney DTV sequels. The Aladdin sequels, Kronk's New Groove, Buzz Lightyear Of Star Command, and Stich!: The Movie were fine. Just as long as the story is good and the original cast returns (or at least the cast of the main characters.), it's all good. But what Disney should understand that if their movie does good, then the sequel should go to theaters first and DVD second. They had some hit movies and yet their sequels go to DVD. They should do that if the movie dosen't do too well.

Rudy Matt wrote:The studio has survived 40+ years without his input.

The company has survived 40+ years because of the incredible achievements of the man who created it. Where would the company be without Disneyland, WDW, his animated films, his live action films, and ultimately -- the brand name he established over decades of quality entertainment. His work was so strong, the company that bears his name has survived his death. The stewards of that company betrayed the leacy given to them by degrading that brand name with the cheapquels.

Even so, you can't expect the company to just *stop* simply because he did.

I'm not trying to discredit anything Walt did, I'm just stating the obvious. He's dead, the company isn't, so they'll keep going. Whether or not they stick to his ideals and legacy is up to them, but they have to make decisions that are for the good of the company, not for the good of fans who want the company to go back to a bygone era that simply cannot be duplicated.

As netty pointed out, there are various companies that have continued on beyond the death of their founder. Why should Disney be any different? They're selling a brand name, not a person.

Rudy Matt wrote:To say "the studio has survived 40 years without his input" is not only wrong, it is insulting.

Some of the best films/tv shows/etc. to come from the company originated in the first 43 years that Walt was a part of it. But he hasn't been an active force for the past 43 years and the company is still here. We can't expect Disney to ever be Walt's Disney anymore and we shouldn't have to. I think it's more insulting for fans to think the studio should adhere to the practices of yesteryear rather than keep moving forward. Disney can still make quality family-friendly entertainment, but they had to branch out to other venues in order to maintain that, and they did it without Walt. Walt is no longer here, nor will he ever be, to say "Do this, not that", but the people in charge of the company can learn from what he did, as well as with their own ideas. They can't keep trying to imitate Walt or his ways. Just because something worked then doesn't mean it always will. Fifty years from now, John Lasseter likely will have retired from Disney and Pixar, and there will be new blood to take over, having been trained and apprenticed under the old regime. It's an ongoing cycle and every new generation will bring in new ideas and new films. You can't keep holding on to the past and hoping it somehow works its way back into the present.

netty wrote:Disney is more than "Disney".

albert

Uh, there are some that I think are good. I'm even all for the bad ones. If they're bad, I just won't watch it again.... it's not rocket science.

Escapay, Katzenburg is not the same because he changed studios, he didn't make or have his own studio, there's no Katzenburg studio, he never declared he made Katzenburg movies. I've never heard of 'Katzenburg movies' from any studio he was apart of, or from anywhere. But I have heard of Disney movies from everywhere and from the Disney studio itself.

Katzenburg made a Disney film, The Little Mermaid, which I think is near perfect but only Walt Disney could say if it was a perfect Disney film and have it be true as opposed to the opinions everyone else can think. Lasseter makes Pixar films, not Lasseter films. He never made Lasseter's Fidning Nemo like Walt Disney made Walt Disney's Peter Pan.

It's like...the stuff in the perfect horror film would not be perfect to make the perfect romantic comedy film. Something something suggests for the perfect film may really not be perfect for Disney's film. Someone may suggest a way to make an old Disney film more perfect but only Walt could really say. And so, only Walt could decide if anything in a sequel is okay because sequels change how people feel about the original films, thus in a way changing them.

The main point I want to make is not about the perfect state, but that the creator of these films is dead and any sequels that say they are the official continuations is in fact a lie because the original creator of the original films never officially approved it. But if they are dreams, fantasies of what could be continuations, but not real official continuations, they are fine.

Mainly, the company the guy founded should respect the films the guy made. C'mon.

Netty, the Three Caballeros are different from the other films in many important ways.

First, did Walt ever make a list that officially stated these as counting as animated feature classics along with the rest of the films? The company has now, but did Walt actually do it? They were and are called package features, not animated features and not animated classics. Well maybe today the company calls them animated classics but did Walt?

Next, almost all the other films are based on already existing sources, supposed to be the Disney bringing to life of those words. So there couldn't be a sequel to them unless they were based on the sequel the original author of the original sources the original films were based on made. Hope that made sense. Because Disney's Peter Pan is supposed to be the Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie, while Donald and the other Caballeros are all Disney creations and can have further adventures by the company that created them.

Cinderella and Snow White's first literature forms can't be called sequels when they're re-imaginings. They're supposed to be other versions, or simply the written versions of past stories as they were heard at the time of writing. Or entirely different stories, depending on how you look at it. The early Egyptian girl with a golden sandal can't really be thought to be the same girl as Cendrillon. Two seperate characters, though clearly one inspired the other. The Grimm's Aschenputtel could be thought as the same girl as Cendrillon, though, because their names mean about the same thing and their stories are like whisper down the alley happened to one story. But those stories are not sequels to the original forms of the stories, just new forms themselves.

Next, you talked about authors that died and why do we not need their approval for film versions or other adaptations of there works?

Becuase adaptations are not sequels! It's just putting your imagination to the words they wrote! Yes, they change things but it's an imagining, an interpretation, not a sequel. It's rather wrong to say "this is what happens later to this other person's characters" that's not what that person wrote.

But I'll tell you something that almost allows anything: freedom.

People will write fan fiction and make their own sequels and adaptations no matter what because they want to. It's just saying it's official and making money off it that should be illegal. And the company a creator founded making sequels he didn't approve of to be the official continuations of his originals is insulting that creator.

Mike, you still didn't answer my question:

What definition of "perfect" are you using? Because none of them, as far as I know, include something about how a film (in this case a Disney film) is perfect because one person approved of everything that went into making the film. I mean...just how exactly is a film perfect because it was made how Walt wanted it to be made? Doesn't every filmmaker make the film how they want to (well, if they're a big-enough filmmaker to get final cut privileges)?

Mike wrote:Katzenburg is not the same because he changed studios

What does that have to do with anything?

Mike wrote:he didn't make or have his own studio

DreamWorks SKG was founded by Steven Spielberg (S), Jeffrey Katzenberg (K), and David Geffen (G). And since the very beginning, Katzenberg has ALWAYS been head of the Animation studio, and in 2004 he remained the head of the animation studio when it became DreamWorks Animation.

Mike wrote:there's no Katzenburg studio, he never declared he made Katzenburg movies. I've never heard of 'Katzenburg movies' from any studio he was apart of, or from anywhere.

Really?

No wait, let me repeat that in capital letters.

REALLY?

Just because he didn't name a studio after himself, he's not making "Kaztenberg movies"? Reread what I said above. He's been head of DreamWorks Animation since the studio was founded, and remained head of it when it became its own studio. Every DreamWorks animated film (with the exception of the Aardman-produced ones), has been under his control, and he's got the final say on what goes in and what stays out of the movie.

How the hell is this any different from Walt Disney?

(And before one of the fanatical Disney worshipers comes in with "How dare you compare the greatness of a Walt Disney film to the hack that DreamWorks dares to call animation!" I am merely pointing out that both share the same responsibilities as the head of their respective studio.)

Mike wrote:Katzenburg made a Disney film, The Little Mermaid, which I think is near perfect but only Walt Disney could say if it was a perfect Disney film and have it be true as opposed to the opinions everyone else can think.

Again, you're not answering my question. What definition of "perfect" are you using to describe a Disney film beyond "It has to have been supervised by Walt"?

Mike wrote:Lasseter makes Pixar films, not Lasseter films. He never made Lasseter's Fidning Nemo like Walt Disney made Walt Disney's Peter Pan.

Pixar, like Disney, is a brand name. People associate a certain quality when they see "Pixar" or "Disney" or "DreamWorks" or whatever other name there is. It does NOT have to be named after the person making it for it to be a true "perfect" film.

Walt Disney himself even explains it in both The Art of Animation and to Marty Sklar in these excerpt from Bob Thomas' Walt: An Americna Original (both on page 279)

Excerpt 1: (from The Art of Animation, itself an excerpt in Thomas' book)

• There is only one reason why "Walt Disney" has been played up: because it adds personality to the whole thing. It isn't "Ajax Films Presents" - it is a personality. Actually, "Walt Disney" is a lot of people. Let's put this in an honest way. This is an organization. Each man is willing to work with the other and share his ideas. This is an achievement...

Excerpt 2: Walt Disney to Marty Sklar:

• "Look - Disney is a thing, an image in the public mind. Disney is something they think of as a kind of entertainment, a kind of family thing, and it's all wrapped up in the name Disney. If we start pulling that apart by calling it 'a Bill Walsh Production for Walt Disney' or 'a Jim Algar True-Life Adventure for Walt Disney,' then the name 'Disney won't mean as much any more. We'd be cutting away at what we've built up over all these years. You see, I'm not Disney any more. I used to be Disney, but now Disney is something we've built up in the public mind over the years. It stands for something, and you don't have to explain what it is to the public. They know what Disney is when they hear about our films or go to Disneyland. They know they're gonna get a certain quality, a certain kind of entertainment. And that's what Disney is."

Mike wrote:The main point I want to make is not about the perfect state

But that's the point that is really confusing me, because you rely on it so much without really explaining it beyond "If Walt said so, then it must be perfect."

Mike wrote:Mainly, the company the guy founded should respect the films the guy made. C'mon.

And they do. They give (some of) them loving treatments on home video, usually preceded these days by a limited theatrical engagement. They have character and attraction tie-ins in the parks, loads of merchandise, and know to keep the films in the public eye for only a certain amount of time, thus whenever it comes back, it's a celebration.

Some may think the sequels are the company's way of spitting on that legacy, and they're entitled to their opinion. Heck, even I dislike a fair amount of the DTV films because they're simply bad on their own, without even considering that they're a sequel to an earlier film.

As netty and others have pointed out, it's hardly as if Walt could lay claim to the original works (for most films) himself. He created a "Disney" version, which is considered original in its own right. At the same time, a sequel (no matter how embraced or loathed it may be) is someone else's own original work, even if it building off of the work of others. It's a moot point if a sequel presents a straightforward "here's what they did after Movie 1" or some bizarre "What if instead of this, something else happened?" narrative. A sequel is still a sequel, even if it's not by the original creator. If it annoys people that it's portrayed as immediately following the previous film, that's their problem, and they're not forced into or obligated to watch it anyway. It can't capture the same attitudes and environment as the original, because it is not the original, nor will it ever be. The sequel is a movie unto itself, and should be judged as such, not as the younger sibling to something else.

Sure, it can tick off people (or the ones who created the original work), as they may see it as stealing or poorly imitating something that was better. But as you said, they have the "freedom" to do so. And for a time, the Disney company had the freedom to create sequels to Walt-era films. Yes, it was met with a lot of anger by Walt purists, and yes, they generally were bad. But it was a decision the company made because the company answers to shareholders, who wants to see the company they've invested in keep turning that profit. They are not obligated to answer to fans, no matter how much the fans wished they did. Fans have a right to stop buying Disney products if they're dissatisfied, but Disney doesn't exactly have a right to stop making a product if it still is successful.

Mike wrote:And the company a creator founded making sequels he didn't approve of to be the official continuations of his originals is insulting that creator.

So every episode and movie based on "Star Trek" that came after Gene Roddenberry's 1991 death is "wrong" and shouldn't be considered canon.

As is the entirety of the new "Doctor Who" that started in 2005, since its original creator, Sydney Newman, died in 1997. Newman himself left "Doctor Who" after its first few years, and it continued on for 20ish more years without him having a say in how it was made.

I guess "Wicked" (be it the novel or the musical) should be burned at the stake since neither original Oz author L. Frank Baum nor director-of-the-1939-film Victor Fleming had any input into it.

In effect, nothing at all should be created as an official continuation if the original creator is gone. That settles it, then. The Walt Disney Company should have folded over after December 15, 1966, since Walt was no longer there to have a say on any films, television shows, merchandise, theme park attractions, etc. that will bear the Disney brand.

I'm going to hate myself for putting this out there, as the last time I did, it was a last-resort throwaway argument...

Tony Baxter, as quoted in David Koenig's Mouse Under Glass (page 173):

• Many Disney purists weren't happy with rides based on non-Disney properties, charging that the Imagineers wouldn't have rented the Muppets; he would have created his own characters. "A lot of people tell me it's sacrilege, but I tell them if they want to get technical, Walt Disney died in 1966, so movies made after that really aren't Disney movies," Tony Baxter responds. "Kids growing up in the Seventies and Eighties don't have great Disney movies, so anybody who does a film for Disney now, like Robert Zemeckis, it's just his film released with the Disney name. The spirit's more important, the state of mind. Look at E.T., Star Wars; the parent's missing, there's the sense of something different, all the things that endear you to the character are there and work for many of the same reasons. E.T.'s truisms are the same as Disney's, and it was sort of sad that we had no movies like that (at that time)."

albert

Disney Duster wrote: Netty, the Three Caballeros are different from the other films in many important ways.

First, did Walt ever make a list that officially stated these as counting as animated feature classics along with the rest of the films? The company has now, but did Walt actually do it? They were and are called package features, not animated features and not animated classics. Well maybe today the company calls them animated classics but did Walt?

Who cares? The list of official classics or not has as much meaning to me as a list for the day's shopping.

Next, almost all the other films are based on already existing sources, supposed to be the Disney bringing to life of those words. So there couldn't be a sequel to them unless they were based on the sequel the original author of the original sources the original films were based on made. Hope that made sense. Because Disney's Peter Pan is supposed to be the Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie, while Donald and the other Caballeros are all Disney creations and can have further adventures by the company that created them.

But Barrie's Peter Pan is a sequel - check out The Little White Bird. How can sequels be bad, when Walt himself picked a sequel to film? The same is also true for Alice in Wonderland, which puts elements from both the original and the sequel into the same film.

Cinderella and Snow White's first literature forms can't be called sequels when they're re-imaginings. They're supposed to be other versions, or simply the written versions of past stories as they were heard at the time of writing. Or entirely different stories, depending on how you look at it. The early Egyptian girl with a golden sandal can't really be thought to be the same girl as Cendrillon. Two seperate characters, though clearly one inspired the other. The Grimm's Aschenputtel could be thought as the same girl as Cendrillon, though, because their names mean about the same thing and their stories are like whisper down the alley happened to one story. But those stories are not sequels to the original forms of the stories, just new forms themselves.

Come on, Disney's Beauty and the Beast has as much in common with the original fairytale as I do with Brad Pitt. It's a totally new creation which (for commercial reasons as much as artistic) plays up on the fact the story and main characters are familiar to the audience in some respect. Do you think it would have been so popular if it was called the "Farmgirl and the Bull-Man"?

So, taking existing characters, putting them essentially in a new story with elements of the familiar one audiences already know, but adding new twists and elements at the same time? Sounds like at least 80% of all sequels to me.

Next, you talked about authors that died and why do we not need their approval for film versions or other adaptations of there works?

Becuase adaptations are not sequels! It's just putting your imagination to the words they wrote! Yes, they change things but it's an imagining, an interpretation, not a sequel. It's rather wrong to say "this is what happens later to this other person's characters" that's not what that person wrote.

So its OK to totally change an original work, even if the author is still alive, create your own characters and story (look how jealously Disney protects its version of Tinker Bell), but its wrong for the same company, years later, to do the same to their own characters?

I don't see the logic at all.

"Look - Disney is a thing, an image in the public mind. Disney is something they think of as a kind of entertainment, a kind of family thing, and it's all wrapped up in the name Disney. If we start pulling that apart by calling it 'a Bill Walsh Production for Walt Disney' or 'a Jim Algar True-Life Adventure for Walt Disney,' then the name 'Disney won't mean as much any more. We'd be cutting away at what we've built up over all these years. You see, I'm not Disney any more. I used to be Disney, but now Disney is something we've built up in the public mind over the years. It stands for something, and you don't have to explain what it is to the public. They know what Disney is when they hear about our films or go to Disneyland. They know they're gonna get a certain quality, a certain kind of entertainment. And that's what Disney is."

Thank you for proving my point. No one is talking about having a dead man give story notes. We're talking about about how the cheapquels degraded the Disney brand name, which was a brand name that Walt and his employees built up through decades of quality entertainment. Of course the company survives, of course the company should be aggressive about pursuing new methods of entertainment. The company should never produce cheap, low budget knock-offs of great work in order to make money, as that destroys and degrades the brand name that everyone worked so hard to establish in the first place.

Lazario wrote: Disney just made money off of those movies. The real minds behind those projects were the Weinsteins. Disney did not make those movies. Not at all. Maybe they put some money into Miramax. But not for each individual project. At least not for several years.

That statement is not entirely accurate. Disney still owns Miramax and made decisions on which movies could and couldn't be made(Dogma, Fahrenheit 9/11) so while two people may have been in control, Disney still *made* those movies, even if they were different people than the ones who made the Disney brand name films. Considering what a family man Walt was, I doubt he would even want to be involved with those films which was the point of that statement.

Same goes when, before Disney, they were co-owned by Paramount. They just split home video rights / profits. Paramount didn't make their movies, nor supply any of their budget money.

Um, what? Paramount never co-owned or financed any of Disney's movies. Do you mean R.K.O. Pictures? That statement would still be wrong as Disney still was their own independent company(like Pixar was before the buyout).

Um, what? Paramount never co-owned or financed any of Disney's movies.

Paramount and Disney teamed up on Dragonslayer and Popeye and split financing costs.

I'm going to try to say things as short as I can.
EDIT: I think I failed.

To everyone, but most directly to Scaps.

The Walt Disney films are perfect Disney films. The main reason being because Disney films are a kind of film, not just any film, created by one person (yes he used people's work but approved it all so it was what he wanted). Walt Disney created Disney, a whole new sense or kind of thing, but Spielburg and Katzenburg never tried to do this, especially since Katzenburg produced Disney films. Obviously he never tried to make his own Katzenburg kind of entertainment in Disney movies. He tried to stay true to the Disney kind.

Disney made a kind of entertainment. Spielburg and Katzenburg didn't. Disney movies are a kind all their own. Don't forget, like I already said, they never made "Katzenburg's Kung Fu Panda" or "Lasseter's Finding Nemo" like Walt Disney made "Walt Disney's Lady and the Tramp".

If Speilburg and Katzenburg say that they feel their movies are perfect to them, alright. If Speilburg and Katzenburg say their movies are perfect as their own kind of movies, even though they never strived to make a kind, like Disney did, alright. And even If Walt Disney says that he didn't feel his films were perfect, all right. But the company, the studio that decides to animate a sequel to Walt's films, can't say the first ones weren't perfect and are able to be sequeled.

That's really the main point. The company, the animation studio, can't say the movies that created the studio aren't perfect in that studio's way.

It's like...a whole bunch of movies make up a studio. Suddenly the new team working at the studio says the movies that made up the studio aren't perfect (insert the studio name here) films.

Do you get that one at least? They can think that the films aren't perfect films in general, but it doesn't make sense to work at Disney and say the first films that made/created Disney aren't perfect Disney films. WTF?!

It is not moot point if a sequel is a straight "this is what happened" over a "this is what could have happened, but never did". If it didn't really happen, it's not really a sequel, but a dream or alternate possibility, not what officially happened.

Yes, I can choose to not watch the films, but that does not stop the fact they already made something that changes the original film by saying "this is what happened next", and "the characters changed this way". Now that I think about it, maybe Walt would be deeply hurt if children started thinking Tramp or Thumper or Cinderella really acted like they do in the sequels, that those are what the characters are. The characters are changed. And there is no way around it. Anytime you have the characters do something new, there is always wondering if the characters would really do that, or do that in that way.

Bringing up Star Trek and those other TV series or franchises, that is very different than Walt Disney's films.

Walt Disney never intended any of his animated film to have sequels, save for The Three Caballeros, which are not the same as his animated classic features anyway. They're package films, not features.

Bur Star Trek already had sequels and was clearly intended to be sequelized. That and Dr. Who are series, are just that, series. Not stand alone films. Just like Disney can keep making Mickey and the gang shorts or more Winnie the Pooh because they were series' of shorts with countless sequels. But the Walt films are finished, save for the sequels that were written by the authors of the works the films were based on. But if they make Through the Looking Glass, Sleeping Beauty II: Meet the Parents, and the Peter Pan sequels, they will need to be dreams or something alternate from "this actually really happened to the characters, as Walt would have decided!"

Wicked is completely different as well. It is not a film made by the same studio as if it was by the original creator's team. It was first a book, but Baum's wife wrote books after his death, surely with permission. Not to mention, Baum wrote a series, with many sequels.

Wicked is seen as an alternate view of what happned, a re-imagining. Not a "this is officially what happened". No one thinks the Wicked Witch in the MGM film was really like Elphaba, except some really, really stupid kids I have witnessed on Youtube.

It would be different if McGregor made "The (insert something) of Oz" book, intended to be what really happened in Oz. Even then, he may get permission from Baum's estate, which is different than permission from Roy Disney or something because Walt never gave anyone permission to make sequels to his works, unlike Baum who gave permission to his wife to make sequels to his works.

And if MGM did a sequel to their original Oz classic that wasn't based on one of the books, then that would be pretty bad, but it is different than Disney. How? I think Walt cared more about the issue than the people who worked on the MGM film, mainly one reason being it wasn't "So and so's The Wizard of Oz" like "Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs".

And no, I did not say that nothing can be made after an original creator has died! I did not say nothing "Disney" can be made now that Walt Disney has died! But no sequels that are continuations of the original works the creator made can be made after he has died! Films on their own, like Robin Hood, the Fox and the Hound, The Rescuers, The Black Cauldron, The Little Mermaid, are all fine!

Netty, Walt picked or used sequels to make his films. Yea, I never said he thought sequels, period, were bad. Making sequels to a dead man's original work is what we're talking about here.

I read the original fairy tale Disney's Beauty and the Beast is based on. I was surprised to learn that Belle read books in the original tale. It's definately that fairy tale, that version by Beaumont. Yes, very liberal, very creative with it, but still very clearly that story.

Netty wrote:So its OK to totally change an original work, even if the author is still alive, create your own characters and story (look how jealously Disney protects its version of Tinker Bell), but its wrong for the same company, years later, to do the same to their own characters?

I don't see the logic at all.

There's a re-imagining and then there's "this is what happened next". When you adapt something, you must imagine it all your own. When you make a sequel, everything's already imagined except what happens. Taking the already imagined characters and saying "this is what also happened to them" is quite wrong.

If they did something like re-imagine say, Pinocchio, with a totally different design and personality and make him a whole new character, so it's not Walt Disney's Pinocchio, not intended to be Walt Disney's Pinocchio, and they make a short or some weird little movie or something with this re-imagining of Collodi's work, that is totally different. Very weird and pointless, but different.

Mike wrote:The Walt Disney films are perfect Disney films. The main reason being because Disney films are a kind of film, not just any film, created by one person (yes he used people's work but approved it all so it was what he wanted). Walt Disney created Disney, a whole new sense or kind of thing

Mike, why is it you're still not answering my original question?

What definition of "perfect" is there that says it's perfect because Walt worked on it? How exactly is something from Disney that Walt worked on more "perfect" than something he didn't work on? Heck, beyond his name, Walt really had little input into The Sword in the Stone and left most of it to Bill Peet. But because he's even remotely associated with it, it's a perfect Disney film? Bullsh!t is all I have to say.

If all you repeat is "A Disney film with Walt's input is a perfect Disney film because Walt worked on it" then I really have no reason to keep trying to understand this whole "perfect" thing.

There's a difference between a film in the Disney style versus a film that Walt worked on, but the one thing both share is neither are perfect no matter how one tries to spin it.

Disney is a brand name. If Walt initially named his studio Yellow Rose Films and all the Disney films were "A Yellow Rose Film" would they be considered perfect Yellow Rose films because Walt worked on them, as opposed to something like The Rocketeer, which is a Yellow Rose film, but not a perfect one because Walt didn't work on it?

Mike wrote:but Spielburg and Katzenburg never tried to do this,

Why should they try to imitate Disney? They're their own filmmakers and they make their own films. They can be inspired by certain elements that are in Disney films (Spielberg said that Pete's Dragon was part of the inspirations that led to his film E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, which was originally conceived as a horror film called Watch the Skies rather than a family film.). But why should they imitate a Disney film? Some misplaced need for Disney fans to accept that there are good family films that are not by Disney? Even during Disney's lifetime, there were a slew of successful family films. Disney did not invent nor perfect the idea of family entertainment. He had his own style, as did other filmmakers. But filmmakers don't need to say "this is the kind of films we make" to justify it being *their* film.

Mike wrote:especially since Katzenburg produced Disney films. Obviously he never tried to make his own Katzenburg kind of entertainment in Disney movies. He tried to stay true to the Disney kind.

Mike wrote:Disney made a kind of entertainment. Spielburg and Katzenburg didn't.

Mike wrote:Disney movies are a kind all their own. Don't forget, like I already said, they never made "Katzenburg's Kung Fu Panda" or "Lasseter's Finding Nemo" like Walt Disney made "Walt Disney's Lady and the Tramp".

Once again...

Really?

No wait, let me repeat that in capital letters.

REALLY?

Just because neither have their name in front of it, to brand it as their own...they don't make their own kind of films?

Honestly, it's like talking to a brick wall.

Mike wrote:If Speilburg and Katzenburg say that they feel their movies are perfect to them, alright. If Speilburg and Katzenburg say their movies are perfect as their own kind of movies, even though they never strived to make a kind, like Disney did, alright. And even If Walt Disney says that he didn't feel his films were perfect, all right.

All right, all right, all right. It still doesn't explain why a Disney film is perfect because Walt worked on it, and it still doesn't explain why Spielberg or Katzenberg or anyone else have to attach their name to the title of a movie to show it's *their* movie.

I already gave my Katzenberg comparison, so I'll move on to Stevie.

Steven Spielberg is one of, if not, the most successful directors in Hollywood. For the past 35 years, most of his films have been box-office and/or critical hits. He's successful enough that he can make whatever movie he wants, however he wants to make it and studios will do whatever they can to get him to work with them as producer or consultant on their own films. And yet...in your skewed point of view...because he did not start a studio with his name on it, or announced, "I'm making a Spielberg movie"...he does not have a "kind of movie" like Disney does?

Watch a Spielberg movie. Watch several. There are elements and touches in them that are his and his alone, a kind of quality that automatically makes his movies his own. He doesn't need to state that a movie is his because it already speaks for itself. He doesn't need a production company named after him (even if he did start Amblin Entertainment and DreamWorks) to justify what a Spielberg movie is.

Mike wrote:But the company, the studio that decides to animate a sequel to Walt's films, can't say the first ones weren't perfect and are able to be sequeled.

That's really the main point. The company, the animation studio, can't say the movies that created the studio aren't perfect in that studio's way.

I can't ever recall the studio out-and-out saying "Our movies weren't perfect, so we're making sequels to rectify that!" They made sequels to capitalise on the popularity of the originals, they're not saying, "Hey, Walt should've done this too!"

But hey, whatever floats your boat.

Mike wrote:Bringing up Star Trek and those other TV series or franchises, that is very different than Walt Disney's films.

How so? They're successful properties created by one person, and they've continued on after that person's death. Sure, they're not animated (but hey, that's what "Star Trek: The Animated Series" and "Doctor Who: The Infinite Quest" is for!), but beyond that...

Mike wrote:And if MGM did a sequel to their original Oz classic that wasn't based on one of the books

*cough cough*

Mike wrote:And no, I did not say that nothing can be made after an original creator has died! I did not say nothing "Disney" can be made now that Walt Disney has died!

In essence, since Walt created the Disney brand, anything with the Disney name that was done after his death is made without his approval. As such, if you think that official continuations of his movies would be insulting, by extension, it would basically imply that anything the company makes after his death is insulting to him as he didn't work on it. After all, you're the one with the idea that "A Disney film is not a perfect Disney film unless Walt worked on it."

Like I said, it was a last-minute throwaway argument that I knew I'd regret. But it still is valid to this mess of a debate.

Mike wrote:If they did something like re-imagine say, Pinocchio, with a totally different design and personality and make him a whole new character, so it's not Walt Disney's Pinocchio, not intended to be Walt Disney's Pinocchio, and they make a short or some weird little movie or something with this re-imagining of Collodi's work, that is totally different. Very weird and pointless, but different.

Pointless? Why? Why can't Disney say, "Walt's version of Pinocchio is great, but we've got some talented filmmakers here who want to show us *their* version of the Pinocchio story too." Disney can't be (and thankfully are not) locked to the idea that anything Walt made is untouchable and can never ever ever be remade or re-imagined.

Mike wrote:It's like...a whole bunch of movies make up a studio. Suddenly the new team working at the studio says the movies that made up the studio aren't perfect (insert the studio name here) films.

Do you get that one at least? They can think that the films aren't perfect films in general, but it doesn't make sense to work at Disney and say the first films that made/created Disney aren't perfect Disney films. WTF?!

I agree. WTF.

I'm really just lost in your logic and I won't even dare to continue to try to understand it, so I'm pretty much done with this particularly rousing debate/argument/whateverwe'llcallit. So I'll be content in thinking what I think, as you're content in thinking what you think. It doesn't make either of us right or wrong, no matter how much we want to be.

albert

This will be shorter so please still oblige.

It seems you still aren't getting it, but at least it means no one is the same.

The perfect things for a family picture would not be the perfect things for a horror picture. The perfect things for a romantic comedy would not be the perfect things for a sci-fi action adventure. Walt, even said in the quote you gave, he made a kind of entertainment. Things that make it that perfect kind don't apply to every other entertainment.

My main point was not that no one could say Disney films aren't perfect, my main point was that the company and the studio that made those films can't say it. Individuals that work their can say it on their own, but the studio as a whole can't say so, like if that studio were to make a sequel, it would be looked at as the studio's statement.

I already explained how talking about franchises or series like Star Trek is different from stand alone films.

I alread saw Journey Back to Oz. It was based on a book by Baum, and I said if MGM made a sequel that wasn't based on the original books. Also, it was animated, and I guess I should have said it, but it's only if they made a live-action film that it would seem like a real continuation of the first film.

You see, the animated film used new designs and practically new characters for everyone. Dorothy was not the same Dorothy as Judy Garland's in look, in personality, in the whole character.

It's only if after the original creators were dead they made a film that was supposed to be a continuation of the first one, same design, same characters, not based on any of the books, that it would be pretty insulting and blasphemous.

They actually had some people who worked on or were connected to the people who worked on the first film, like Margaret Hamilton and Judy Garland's daughter, so it has some more legitimacy because some who worked on the first film, or their inheritors, like their estate with their blessings, worked on this one. Like, if some animators of Bambi were still alive and worked on Bambi II, then it might be more acceptable, though still wrong in the end because Walt Disney, who imagined it and approved everything and mainly created the first one, was still dead..

And I already explained it, but will again, making a continuation of the original stand alone films someone else created after they died is completely different from making your own stand alone works within their studio. That's not related to your "nothing can be made after Walt died" argument at all.

Okay, making a newly imagined Pinocchio by the same studio that already made the excellent well-made well-loved well-respected film would only be pointless in my opinion...and the opinion of pretty much the whole public. Also, it would be pointless for the studio itself. But no, it may not be pointless for the ones that genuinely want to make it, because they have such a great vision or whatever, but to make it not pointless, they should do it independently, on their own, at their own studio or someone elses studio.

And you really, truly didn't get this?: It doesn't make sense for people working at a studio to say that the films that created that studio aren't the perfect kind of films that that studio created. People working at Disney can't say the films that made Disney what it is are not perfect Disney films. Those films made Disney what it is! They are Disney! They can't make a "better" Disney film, but they can feel they can make a better "film".

Mike, I'm really not understanding what you're saying. If Disney (the company) decides to make Dumbo II or Pinocchio II, that does not dishonor the originals. It merely means that they think an enjoyable story can be made with those characters, and they think enough people want to see a continuation or gap-filling story to make it profitable.

When the studio made The Lion King II: Simba's Pride, they weren't making a statement that the first one was lacking in some way. They were acknowledging that the first movie was a smash hit and wanted to give the audience more.

If people want to make sequels, prequels, remakes, or another type of retelling of a film, my only question is whether or not the final product is good. I don't care if the original film is young or old, and I don't care which medium it debuts in. Disney's non-WDAS work has been all over the map in terms of quality, so rather than hoping for no more output from Disney Toon Studios and the like, I hope for more like the best things they've made.

BrandonH wrote:Mike, I'm really not understanding what you're saying. If Disney (the company) decides to make Dumbo II or Pinocchio II, that does not dishonor the originals. It merely means that they think an enjoyable story can be made with those characters, and they think enough people want to see a continuation or gap-filling story to make it profitable.

But what if Walt wouldn't want whatever they do to his characters?

It doesn't matter if a lot of people like what they make, if it's "good". The original creator is dead.

They can keep using Mickey and the characters that have been in more than one thing, but Dumbo and Pinocchio were meant to be in their own stand alone films, their stories are done. Any story with them in it afterward is a lie.

Something like The House of Mouse is different, that's not what they are saying is really what happened to all the Disney characters. It's a TV series not what they call an official sequel like "name of the first one" II. Part II of the original. No, Walt never wanted or said there was a part II!

ANY sequel changes the perception of the characters and their original film. ANY sequel does something to the original.

As I said, would Walt approve of how Tramp or Bambi or Thumper or Cinderella acted in their sequels? You know, probably not, at least not all of their actions, all of their changes.

Like most other sequels, the ones Disney made were all only about one thing: quick cash. Most sequels aren't very good, and that's because the motive behind them isn't telling a story that actually ads something of substance to the original film, but to cash in on the succes of the first film. The result is a lazy, lifeless empty shell that doesn't deserve to share its name with the original film. There are very few exceptions. The Godfather and Star Wars (the first three) are really the only ones I can think of now. The latest flood of sequels to 1980's franchises only proves how little inspiration Hollywood apparently has left.

This goes for the Disney dtv's as well. The scripting is done in the department that also produces the tv shows, and the animation is outsourced to Japanese animation 'factories' that used to work on DuckTales and Gummi Bears! That's not the kind of quality that is worthy of the name 'Disney'. Walt Disney himself was always opposed to sequels, as he preferred starting fresh, new projects. He got seduced by the success of the Three Little Pigs, and the sequels to that cartoon are all of a lesser quality and Walt saw his conviction confirmed. But at least the animation in those cartoons was still the best. And that can't be said of drivel like Hunchback of Notre Dame 2, in which the characters often hardly look like they did in the original film.

And why would you want to have a sequel to all these classic films? Those stories are finished. There's always closure in a Walt Disney Classic. By the end of the film, everything that's worthy of being told is told and we, as an audience, know all we need to know. What ever happened to 'and they lived happily ever after'?

Siren wrote:IMO, the best true Disney sequel is Rescuers Down Under. I found that to be a stronger story, character development, and of course animation.

^ Aw...

Well Goliath you need to know some of the DTV's were animated in Australia, at DisneyToon Studios. They made very good animation, and produced not only the best animated, and also the best storied sequels. Bambi II, I think Lilo and Stitch 2. Ariel's Beginning was half there and half out-sourced.

Cinderella III was the last true sequel they did when they were at the top of their game. Though I didn't see many of the other sequels I feel confident in saying it has at leas the best idea out of them all, and perhaps the best story. It also had the best animation. The animated scenes without tracing that almost matched the original's.

It is also an alternate reality, not really a sequel, except in the first 5 minutes I guess, but nothing really happens to the characters then.

Disney Duster wrote: But what if Walt wouldn't want whatever they do to his characters?

They can keep using Mickey and the characters that have been in more than one thing, but Dumbo and Pinocchio were meant to be in their own stand alone films, their stories are done. Any story with them in it afterward is a lie.

No, Walt never wanted or said there was a part II!

No offense is really intended but. Walt is dead. What he would or would not want done to his characters does not really count for much today. The studio will do what it has to do, and what it feels it wants to do. They can't keep saying "What would Walt do" or "What would Walt want" because they don't know 100% for sure. Like I said, he's dead and doesn't really get to have a say in it anymore.

Just because Walt never said there was a part 2 it doesn't mean it never happened, also peoples lives continue on. Do you really think Cinderella's life just stops after "happily ever after"? Or Snow White, or Mowgli, or Bambi. No. Their lives keep going on, they keep living life and having adventures but we just don't seem them unless it's turned into a sequel and is shown to us.

Also, any story with them in it afterwards isn't really a lie. And my previous paragraph sort of ties in to this is as well. They keep living life.

As for Cinderella 3 Duster, note the 3. That means it's a sequel It doesn't matter if you say it's an alternate reality, the fact is in the end that little number shows it's part of a trilogy, that it's a sequel.

Also, I don't really get what you say by alternate reality. Time changed. Not reality. They went back in time one year and pretty much erased any events that happened in that one year. As well as rewrote the ending to the original in the sequel! They didn't let Cindy live happily ever after by putting the slipper on. They changed it and extended the story and added more to it.

In short Alternate Reality? Doubtful.