DVDizzy Forum

atlanticaunderthesea wrote:The tinkerbell films are quite beautiful; I know you hate them Duster, but I will not on this occasion let you beat down my own thoughts on this.

The only person who could say they are canon is JM Barrie. And he probably wouldn't even have approved of Walts version of PP as it is so different.

The Tink films add a wealth of background to the world of fairies, and include things from the original story (NOT Disneys version). For example a baby laughing created Tink.

The legend of faires from all over the world have some of their myths explores here too; it isn't just some cheap thrown together DTV nonsense like Cinderella 3 or Mermaid. It is a well thought out, planned and executed series of films.

Okay, now you're losing my support. Cinderella 3 is flawed, but it's still pretty damn good!

As for your comments about canon, the Tink movies seem to try to be true to the original Peter Pan film by Disney. However, when I say only Disney can call it canon, I assumed you were talking about its canon worth within the context of Disney films. Barrie has no say in that, only Disney. And, as Barrie left the rights to that orphanage or children's hospital, or whatever (I forget), really, only they have the right to decide if something is canon with Barrie's works now, as odd as that seems. Unless he included stipulations about that. In any case, it's funny to think that one could just as easily make argument about what is canon with the Tink films now. They ARE official Disney productions, after all.

Yes I am talking about canon within Disney films.

There is just so much hate for these films, and its hard to get a point across with Duster as he never accepts a point of someone's answer sometimes.

My poit was a certainly don't regard these films in the same legue as DTV films. At all. That's my point.

I personally don't consider the direct-to-video sequels and spin-off television series to be canon with the original films produced by WDAS. Even the ones I like, like The Lion King sequels, I don't consider to be canon with the original film.

I watched the first Tinker Bell after the acclaim and to be honest, I hated it. I didn't find the new characters to be interesting (with the exception of the two sidekick fairies and let's face it, it's hard to make a Rob Paulsen character uninteresting). And the story never once moved me or captured my attention. Tinker Bell is my favourite character in Disney's Peter Pan, because of her fiery and jealous personality and the excellent animation by Marc Davis. Even though she didn't say a word, she was a fascinating individual. Tink was down-graded to a nice girl-next-door and her dialogue was boring. Even Mae Whitman, who's a very good voice-actress (as anybody who has seen Avatar: The Last Airbender will tell you) gives a stale performance. The only hint of the Tink character I liked was when she turned red at one quick point.

I have to admit, though, that the animation is theatrical-level quality and the musical score is nice. Of course, this is all just my opinion. I don't mind new takes on characters, but this didn't do much for me.

Well, so far, I only liked 'The Lion King 1½', 'Bambi and the Great Prince of the Forest', 'Tinker Bell', 'Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure', 'Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue' and 'Tinker Bell and the Pixie Hollow Games'! In my opinion, their animation and narrative were consistently good, which is something that can't be said for the rest of the sequels/prequels/midquels.

And Tinker Bell still jingles and turns red...

I can't wait for the final film this Fall... I hope there's some sort of link, no matter how small, to 'Peter Pan'.

estefan wrote:I watched the first Tinker Bell after the acclaim and to be honest, I hated it. I didn't find the new characters to be interesting (with the exception of the two sidekick fairies and let's face it, it's hard to make a Rob Paulsen character uninteresting). And the story never once moved me or captured my attention.

If you all-out hated the first, this might not mean much, but each Tink film is much better than the previous one, and same with the development of the characters. The first film, I felt, had a good story to it, but it was also a lot of introduction and set-up for the whole series of films. People can be overly harsh (in my opinion) on a film intended to be the first in a series of films for that very reason. There's a lot to introduce and explain in the course of an hour and a half (give or take).

slave2moonlight wrote:

estefan wrote:I watched the first Tinker Bell after the acclaim and to be honest, I hated it. I didn't find the new characters to be interesting (with the exception of the two sidekick fairies and let's face it, it's hard to make a Rob Paulsen character uninteresting). And the story never once moved me or captured my attention.

If you all-out hated the first, this might not mean much, but each Tink film is much better than the previous one, and same with the development of the characters. The first film, I felt, had a good story to it, but it was also a lot of introduction and set-up for the whole series of films. People can be overly harsh (in my opinion) on a film intended to be the first in a series of films for that very reason. There's a lot to introduce and explain in the course of an hour and a half (give or take).

Exactly ! I think people give up on things way too easily. Though I supposed I am biased as I didn't think there was anything to give up on in the first place.

It can be anyone's belief and opinion that the Tinker Bell films are part of the original Disney Peter Pan's canon. It just can't be considered truth until Peter Pan's original animators come back from the dead and say so. That's all I meant. And I'm also just rather surprised that you don't care what the original people would think.

Personally, as a viewer, in regards to new material, I care more what I think than what the original creators from a completely different time would think. But, when it comes to canon, of course, I have an interest in the "official" word, but I have to say that lies with whoever owns the rights to the property, and therefore, the right to make "official" sequels, prequels, midquels, and spin-offs. I think most of the time the Disney company DOES consider the direct to video sequels "canon", but I think there are times they might dance around the question. Most specifically with Cinderella 3, simply because it rewrites Cinderella's happy ending. My guess with Disney in regards to canon in most cases though, is that they would probably consider anything on film (not storybooks and such) to be their official canon unless there are some serious consistency issues. I also (again, this is just my theory) suspect that their attitude is that there is a ranking system that can cancel out previous canon. For example, Little Mermaid 3 contradicts the animated series in some ways, if I remember correctly, so Disney could never say that both were canon; however, I suspect they would have called the show canon at the time it was on and now would choose the direct to video sequels over the TV series. One can also pull the alternate universe card, of course, like with the whole Honey, I Shrunk the Kids thing... And, yeah, I'm sure the original people who worked on The Little Mermaid wouldn't consider the show nor the DTVs canon, but I still say the Disney company has final word on all their property in regards to what is canon or not.

Of course, we will all continue to make our own rules about canon, I'm sure.

Let me add that the whole "canon" issue really pulled a boner on us Star Wars/Indiana Jones fans. For years, we followed the comics and novels to be canon, and that was fine since they were "official" products and no new films were coming out. Then, Lucas came along and made the Star Wars prequels and shows, the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, and the 4th Indy film. This contradicted so much of what we got from the other media. It was frustrating to say the least.

I don't see how the thing that should be considered above all is what is morally right. Walt didn't write down any rules, but did he really imagine people would make not only sequels to his films that only belonged to the original artists he put in charge of them, but sequels so subpar they weren't even animated in the Disney Animation Studios?

I mean no offense to anyone who loves any of the direct-to-video fair and wants to believe in their opinion that they fit perfectly in the original film's canon. I suppose their is a corporate Disney canon that all the sequels and spin-offs can be part of...but we can't be certain that that's the truthful canon to the original artists who made the original classics. They'd have to say, and they aren't coming back from the grave any time soon.

hmmm interesting. I hope Terence is in the movie then!

Update: Reese Witherspoon will star as Tink.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... ive-797424

Course, they're doing Peter Pan now. But, Reese is PERFECT for Tink!

Reese is a peculiar choice, but still not a miscast. I can see her as Tink, though I've never considered Reese particularly sassy.

Details on the project's angle are being kept deep in Pixie Hollow, but insiders say it will play with the idea and the timeline of the well-known Peter Pan narrative. It is also being developed in the vein of Maleficent, Disney’s 2014 hit that starred Angelina Jolie as the evil witch from Sleeping Beauty. Like Maleficent, this Tinker Bell tale is conceived as “the story you don’t know,” and will offer a new perspective on the character.

Let's hope it doesn't get as "Maleficent" and that it will bear a resemblance to either way "Peter Pan" or the "Tinker Bell" franchise.

Unlike Maleficent or some other recent Disney movies, however, Tink is being developed to be made in a more modest, midrange budget.

Well, the latter is a statement to be aware of.

Somehow, the Reese Witherspoon casting makes me think this will be a lighter film. Something similar to the 3D spin-off films. I like Witherspoon, but I'm betting this will go that direction--basically exxing out Tink's sexuality/edge and turning her into an everygirl character. So, not too excited about this one.

I really hope not. Witherspoon can play flawed characters very well (as shown in Election and more recently in Wild), so if they write the character closer to the vengeful and jealous fairy in Peter Pan, she would definitely do a great job on it.

Possible logo for the movie.


Source: http://www.liverpool.com.mx/tienda/disn ... at21010034


Update: It turns out the logo above is from a new line of Tinker Bell merchandise.


Source: https://issuu.com/pyramidinternational/ ... jan_2016_v

I enjoyed the animated Tinker Bell franchise a lot, so I'm pretty excited about a live-action movie. However, as much as I like Reese Witherspoon, I can't really imagine her as Tink. I'd rather like to see Elizabeth Banks, as planned before, or even Margot Robbie.

Sotiris wrote:Possible logo for the movie.


Source: http://www.liverpool.com.mx/tienda/disn ... at21010034

Not the greatest logo. Not awful, but not impressive by any means.

I have read now Jennifer Lawrence is the top choice for the role of Tinkerbell.

Guess Reese Witherspoon is out now ?

Maybe Disney was afraid having her in another Fantasy movie bytham would remind people of the widely hated A Wrinkle in Time ?

The article said if Lawrence pass on the role Disney wants actress like her. I wonder if they mean in terms of fame, creditablty anda wards or judt simply age and appearnce.

All this referces to the Tinkerbell live action spin off movie from the screenwriter of Finding Dorry and not the actual Peter Pan remake on Disney Plus by David Lowery who did that shitty looking Pete's Dragon remake that looked like comlept trash to me.

The article you read was from We Got This Covered who are notorious for making stuff up, especially when it comes to Disney remakes. Anyway, the project seems to have either been shelved or put on the back burner.

Skyler Shuler wrote:As of earlier this year, the Reese Witherspoon Tinker Bell movie was still in development, with Witherspoon still on board as producer but wasn't attached to play the role. From what I read on the film, it was going to be a very heartfelt/emotional film. I don't know if it's scrapped.

Source: https://twitter.com/SkylerShuler/status ... 3281413121