DVDizzy Forum

singerguy04 wrote:Personally, I'm finding Lasseter to be a hypocrite because is there really a huge difference between the DTV sequels and these spin offs?

yes, our beloved characters aren't being brutally murdered. Cinderella 2 and a CGI DTV film about talking planes are two different things in my opinion.

both exist to babysit toddlers, but the planes flick will be harmless when it comes to character/studio reputation.

PatrickvD wrote:

singerguy04 wrote:Personally, I'm finding Lasseter to be a hypocrite because is there really a huge difference between the DTV sequels and these spin offs?

yes, our beloved characters aren't being brutally murdered. Cinderella 2 and a CGI DTV film about talking planes are two different things in my opinion.

both exist to babysit toddlers, but the planes flick will be harmless when it comes to character/studio reputation.

"brutally murdered"? That's a little bit of an exaggeration.

I don't think anyone can really disagree that before they were forbidden they had actually started to get better. In certain ways they also started to get a bit smarter by making some, not all, of the stories worth telling. Anyhow, that's my standpoint for the sequels.

To elaborate on my original post in combination with your response... How exactly would a sequel be different in murdering a character than a spin-off franchise about a character, like Tink, would be? Lasseter deemed an end to the sequels, but allowed the tinkerbell franchise to exist and expand. Be it true that Planes wouldn't really have anything to do with the Cars film(s) except that it exists in the same world, wouldn't we be treading a fine line? Would the people who hated the DTV sequels be OK with a DTV film being released about a young mermaid who is not related to Ariel but lives in Atlantica, or a film about a group of toys that lives next door to Woody and Buzz?

Maybe it's just me, but any DTV project that is linked to a film that already exists is a beat around the bush way of creating a sequel.

It is slightly different, because it's not the same characters as the original film - it's set in the same world, with different characters.

Tink is the only character (well, there's one more but that's a spoiler) from Peter Pan in the fairy spin-offs.

These planes aren't the Cars.

So it is a spin-off and not a sequel. In my opinion though, it is hypocritical - either way, it's a less than grade A product that dilutes a brand by making potential theatrical releases for the franchise less prominent/important.

singerguy04 wrote:

PatrickvD wrote: yes, our beloved characters aren't being brutally murdered. Cinderella 2 and a CGI DTV film about talking planes are two different things in my opinion.

both exist to babysit toddlers, but the planes flick will be harmless when it comes to character/studio reputation.

"brutally murdered"? That's a little bit of an exaggeration.

exaggeration? I think Princess Jasmine begs to differ:

WTF!? I'm confused, so is this Pixar or DisneyToon? Is this the DisneyToon project following the Tink series? If so, then I am extremely disappointed. However.... It is true that DisneyToon has improved as a studio... I mean, just look at some of the Sneak Peeks for Great Fairy Rescue if you don't believe me. Who knows?

The good thing about this is, they're milking a franchise we hate. Rather than ruin WALL-E or Toy Story to death. Although, I am VERY sick of seeing Cars toys and shorts when I'm at Target/TRU or watching television. And I just recalled they're getting a whole land in California in a few years. Who knew placing eyes and a mouth on cars is a big money maker?

In my perspective, anything with the Pixar name on it will put them on the line of whether they are good or bad. I expect the same good quality.

And with John Lasseter, I don't know what is going on with him right now. I don't agree with what he is doing. But, the only excuse (and not even a good excuse) that is coming to me, is that the Disney company is in desperation of money?

It's DisneyToons - this is their follow-up project or side project to the Tink series.

Neal wrote:It's DisneyToons - this is their follow-up project or side project to the Tink series.

Good lord! What a step backwards! Oh well, maybe they will surprise us again, who knows? I just really hope they keep their newfound quality consistent beyond the Disney Fairies series.

My guess would be that this project is soly money-based for Disney. Seeing how in recent years Cars merchandise has sold more than Mickey Mouse and Winnie the Pooh. Which would then also explain why this is made at DisneyToons instead of Pixar. Smart business decision, I'll give 'em that much.

I don't really care much about Cars in general, but I did hope that the project at DisneyToons was something in traditional animation. So much for that.

To be honest, I am rather glad that they are doing another CG project. Mostly because the only CG we've seen from them (The Disney Fairies series) has been very good (and improving as time goes on). Their past 2D efforts, however, have been bland and lackluster at best.

If this is anything of the quality that the Disney Fairies line is, then I have no problem with the project. At all. Even if it leads to more than one DTV from the Cars line.

To those of you still in limbo about viewing the Tinker Bell DTVs, please give them a chance. You, as you've been told already, will be pleasantly surprised.

Now excuse me....I need to go home and re-watch my Tink Blu-Rays.

Look! There's a shark! And there's Pixar jumping over it!

I'll keep my money thanks.

^

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2010/07/20/ ... ff-planes/

(via heyuguys.co.uk via laughingplace.com)

The people working on the film certainly think it’s going to be a good film. They stressed to me that the film has “great characters” and “a tremendous story”, and I’m inclined to believe them.

I don't really see how this can be that much worse than Buzz Lightyear of Star Command, DisneyToons last Pixar project.

To those of you still in limbo about viewing the Tinker Bell DTVs, please give them a chance. You, as you've been told already, will be pleasantly surprised.

I'm not in limbo. Tinker Bell in Walt's film was a very complex, hard-edged little vixen. She redeems herself, but not before showing a fairly palpable dark side. I have no interest in seeing this amazing adult character dumbed down for four-year-olds.

Rudy Matt wrote:

To those of you still in limbo about viewing the Tinker Bell DTVs, please give them a chance. You, as you've been told already, will be pleasantly surprised.

I'm not in limbo. Tinker Bell in Walt's film was a very complex, hard-edged little vixen. She redeems herself, but not before showing a fairly palpable dark side. I have no interest in seeing this amazing adult character dumbed down for four-year-olds.

And how do you know that she's dumbed down for four-year-olds unless you see the movies? It's like you're taking a crack at every and any adult who genuinely likes the Disney Fairies line. Besides, it's the story of the "birth" of Tinker Bell.....she hasn't arrived at her adult self yet for goodness sake! I think you're being a little closed-minded.

I was skeptic about them but they turned out better than I had expected. Not childish, in my opinion!

Rudy Matt wrote:

To those of you still in limbo about viewing the Tinker Bell DTVs, please give them a chance. You, as you've been told already, will be pleasantly surprised.

I'm not in limbo. Tinker Bell in Walt's film was a bitch. She redeems herself, but not before showing a fairly snobby side. I have no interest in seeing this amazing bitch dumbed down for four-year-olds.

I fixed it for you for accuracy.

Unlike Rudy Matt, I have seen the first film and I did not like what they with Tink's character. All of the spark of Marc Davis' excellent animation was gone and replaced with blandness. The only parts I can praise in "Tinkerbell" is the animation which was pretty incredible by direct-to-video standards and the score. Otherwise, I found the characters and story to be just dull and lacking the magic of both the 1953 classic as well as J.M. Barrie's original story.

kbehm29 wrote:And how do you know that she's dumbed down for four-year-olds unless you see the movies?

Because we already *know* how Disney operates when it comes to sequels/dtv movies. We have seen trailers and excerpts from the movies. We've seen the marketing. We've read about the concept. We have decided not to waste our time on toddler crap like this, just to please the people who ask in a smug way: "well, have you at least *seen* them?" As if we need to see all of them...!