DVDizzy Forum

In my case, if I like something it's because I like it, period. It doesn't matter if its popular or not, what matters is that I enjoy it. That's because I no longer care what everyone thinks or try to adjust my personality just to appeal to others. So I don't care if Lion King is extremely popular or if people think Avatar is overrated, if I like them, I LIKE THEM.

Escapay wrote: And any argument about what are bigger/deeper/real fans is pointless anyway. No one can define what a "true" fan is for anything, no matter how much they think they can. People have their own reasons for being a fan or non-fan of something, why should someone else say their fandom is not "right" or "true"? Ridiculous.

Can't wait til Diz Duster bust in (Kool aid style) over that.

Goliath wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:Oh and the Lion Kind ripped off Kimba is a very old, overused, and run into the ground argument.

And that makes it any less true... how?

Can you prove they definitely did? (Posting pictures of similar scenes don't prove it). Otherwise it's a non-discussion. It's not a fact that they ripped it off.

Escapay wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:I agree with this. In many cases it's the conformity/non-conformity issue and in other cases I think either consciously or subconsciously they try to distance themselves from popular opinion to stand out more. Take this forum for instance. Many of us try subconsciously to distance ourselves from other sorts of Disney fans and try to appear as bigger, deeper or "real" fans.

I dislike it because I dislike it. I liked it as a kid, but as I grew older, liked it less. This has happened with plenty of movies, as has the opposite effect of me hating a movie but growing to like it. I'm not trying to be a non-conformist, and if anything, I dislike that whenever anyone (on any forum) states their dislike of something, that the people who do like it immediately brand them as a non-conformist, as if that could be the only reason why someone would dislike something.

It's not right to point and say that "[insert person here]" is a non-conformist and all but I have seen that behavior from fans disliking something. Not necessarily here in reference to Disney but I have seen it and know people personally who go by that mantra. That's why I didn't see it as a large leap to think that there are people who think what they do for those reasons.

And any argument about what are bigger/deeper/real fans is pointless anyway. No one can define what a "true" fan is for anything, no matter how much they think they can. People have their own reasons for being a fan or non-fan of something, why should someone else say their fandom is not "right" or "true"? Ridiculous.

albert

I agree with that. I know some people who do try to define fandom like that for themselves and it definately is ridiculous to try to define what a "true" or "real" fan is.

The_Iceflash wrote:Can you prove they definitely did? (Posting pictures of similar scenes don't prove it). Otherwise it's a non-discussion. It's not a fact that they ripped it off.

Yes, it is a fact and yes, pictures of similar scenes are definitly part of the prove. Similar storylines is another piece of evidence. Even the fact that characters from The Lion King (Timon, Pumbaa, Rafiki) look almost exactly like characters from 'Kimba' is proof. In fact, only *that* alone would be proof enough. That's too big of a similarity to be a mere coïncidence. That's a deliberate attempt to copy a copyright-protected animated series. There are some on this board who say it's not a rip-off, because 'Kimba' consisted of so much more than the storylines found in Lion King. But that's irrelevant, since it doesn't matter *how much* was ripped-off. Rip-off is rip-off.

But I agree with you that it's pointless to debate over what makes a "good fan". Who would *want* to be a "good fan", anyway? Let's not forget that 'fan' is an abbreviation of the word 'fanatic'.

Despite never seeing Kimba, the evidence I've seen makes me believe the this film was a big influence on the Lion King to say the least. The only other explanation of The Lion King's origins I've seen was in the book "Disneywar" which claims Jeffrey Katzenberg initially based it on his own experiences and coming-of-age. Out of those two explanations, I have to believe that the similarities to Kimba are not incidental.

The_Iceflash wrote:

Goliath wrote: And that makes it any less true... how?

Can you prove they definitely did? (Posting pictures of similar scenes don't prove it). Otherwise it's a non-discussion. It's not a fact that they ripped it off.

Don't bother. He thinks he's right but we all know that my argument is more awesome and superior, and therefore debunked his.

Pap, thank you, and I want to say I agree, the ending of the film is great, because Remy, against all odds, did achieve his dream, but not the same way he dreamed it, perhaps not the same way he wanted, but it still came true, which is how really life mostly is, and we should be taught this.

But I have to say...another of the film's messages was "not everyone can be a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere". This, coupled with The Incredibles "if everyone's special, that means nobody's special", I have to think Pixar not only has some kind of idea they are more special than others, but they are teaching people that, well, some people are special, others are not. : (

Well, to them I say, anyone can be a great artist. Who the heck can decide who is a great artist? Or can decide who is great at all? Or can decide who is special? You decide for yourself. Believe you are, even if the rest of the world doesn't see it.

Super Aurora wrote:

Escapay wrote: And any argument about what are bigger/deeper/real fans is pointless anyway. No one can define what a "true" fan is for anything, no matter how much they think they can. People have their own reasons for being a fan or non-fan of something, why should someone else say their fandom is not "right" or "true"? Ridiculous.

Can't wait til Diz Duster bust in (Kool aid style) over that.

OH YEAHHH!

Nah, I'm just kidding. What he said I am fine with. It's pretty right.

Disney Duster wrote:But I have to say...another of the film's messages was "not everyone can be a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere". This, coupled with The Incredibles "if everyone's special, that means nobody's special", I have to think Pixar not only has some kind of idea they are more special than others, but they are teaching people that, well, some people are special, others are not. : (

That's an interesting conclusion to draw. I always thought the message of The Incredibles was more about the value of family that a way of Pixar telling the audience "We're special, you're not". I'm surprised at how pessimistic this is and that you think that of Pixar when they seemed to have mastered good, emotive storytelling.

On a bit of a tangeant, aren't Pixar special? They've had eleven enormously successful films in succession, both critically and commercially, a feat that is an anomoly in the film industry today. Disney obviously thinks that they're special to have spent nearly seven and a half billion dollars to buy them.

DisneyAnimation88, all you said proves my point, except that The Incredibles, yes, was about family, but also about what I said. That in a world of competition (Dash, allowed to use his special talents to win the race against the non-specials), only some can be special and talented.

DisneyAnimation88 wrote: On a bit of a tangeant, aren't Pixar special? They've had eleven enormously successful films in succession, both critically and commercially, a feat that is an anomoly in the film industry today. Disney obviously thinks that they're special to have spent nearly seven and a half billion dollars to buy them.

Disney obviously thinks Miley Cyrus is special, too--they've probably made as much (if not more) off of her.

Not to turn this into a Pixar discussion, but I find most of their films to be cold and somewhat redundant. The Toy Story series, The Incredibles and Monster's Inc. have been the only films I've honestly enjoyed. Well, Ratatouille has a certain charm to it, but I'm attributing that to the soft, pastel-like animation because I didn't really care for any of the characters beyond the antagonists and the dead chef figment. I realize I'm in the very small minority, but I just don't like Pixar that much. Animation-wise, of course they're stunning, but I'm never much entertained by their films and I'm almost never emotionally attached to their characters. And, yes, there is some irritation when everyone else loves something that I really just don't get. I shouldn't bother myself though--I don't get Twilight either.

Also, I didn't mean to say (if anyone got that from my last post) that I thought everyone who disliked TLK were just trying to be non-conformists. Of course I realize that the film has flaws and that there are plenty of actual reasons to hate it, but it seems almost overly maligned here, and it's hard not to think some of that comes from a subconscious cult mentality. I mean, to begin with, I probably disliked Finding Nemo more than I really did because of how many people proclaimed it their new favorite film of all time. But, like with that movie, I think enough time has passed for everyone's emotions to have cooled down and their opinions to be less charged. Though I know there is still some bitterness that all non-Disney fans always point to TLK and B&tB as their best films. But--maybe because I do like the films--that's never really bothered me that much.

How did what I say prove your point when I disagree with everything you said? I said I got a different message, one of family values, than the one you got. I didn't say anything about certain people in the world being more special than others, apart from my point about Pixar's success, which I believe has made them special. I didn't mean it as Pixar think they are better than everyone else, what I meant was no one has come close to their success in recent years so I personally believe that has made them better than most of their competitors.

That's a good point about Miley Cyrus I probably won't comment on Disney's judgement again with that example in mind haha.

Marky_198 wrote:I think the Lion King is underrated.

It's the one film where all of the characters are completely on-model all the time.

The animation is stunning. The story is great. The music is great.
And it's the only classic that made me cry.

Bingo. The Lion King is the pinnacle of Disney Animation. A killer soundtrack, phenomenal animation, a cast of memorable characters, and a poignant and haunting story.

There are just so many memorable and classic scenes, from the beautiful opening gathering to the elephant graveyard scare to the wildebeast stampede to the sequences like "Be Prepared", "Hakuna Matata", and "Can You Feel the Love Tonight". The Rafiki/adult Simba confrontation, ghost of Mufasa, the final battle between Scar and Simba were all extremely well-done and this was one of the most satisfying climaxes in Disney history. Even the little bits like Mufasa/Simba playing around in a star-lit field after Mufasa rescues and chews out his son was a vital, brilliant little scene. But to me, it is the story that ties these scenes together, a wonderful tale of redemption and responsibility.

And much of it was backed by that gorgeous, exotic African soundtrack, which added another layer to the film, much like Giacchino's sentimenal, moving score of Up or the incredibly fun Broadway-esque songs featured in Beauty and the Beast.

Groundbreaking storytelling for this company, more in line with Pixar's full-length features than it is with Disney's extensive catalogue from Snow White to Aladdin.

DisneyAnimation88, you trying to disagree, actually just proved my point, without you realizing. I'm sorry.

RIPJoeRanft wrote:Groundbreaking storytelling for this company, more in line with Pixar's full-length features than it is with Disney's extensive catalogue from Snow White to Aladdin.

Why are you here if you like Pixar more? Disney's catalogue has much better to offer, and I will always stand by that.

Disney Duster wrote:DisneyAnimation88, you trying to disagree, actually just proved my point, without you realizing. I'm sorry.

RIPJoeRanft wrote:Groundbreaking storytelling for this company, more in line with Pixar's full-length features than it is with Disney's extensive catalogue from Snow White to Aladdin.

Why are you here if you like Pixar more? Disney's catalogue has much better to offer, and I will always stand by that.

I love Disney animated films as well as Pixar. I just feel Pixar's stories are generally crafted with more depth and layers. Disney Animation certainly does a lot of things right itself though.

I'm sorry, there was I assuming this forum was free to join. Who are you to question why anyone else is on this forum? RIPJoeRanft expressed their own personal opinion and, like always, you have dismissed it out of hand because it does not comply with your own. You do not run this board, we are all here because we have opinions and questions we would like to share. You are not Walt Disney, you did not know Walt Disney and you are not Walt Disney's personal envoy from beyond the grave so stop putting words in people's mouths. I have not proved your point at all, I do not agree with your point but I do think that your loyalty to Disney means you won't accept any argument someone has in favour of Pixar.

Disney_Duster: Regarding Pixar, I don't think they are saying that they are more special than others.

Here's yet another lengthy explanation about what I think...

Disney and Pixar have two very different philosophical beliefs. Disney is idealistic. Their movies often portray the belief that good intentions will always yield the ultimate reward, that evil will be defeated by good, and that everything can happen if you believe in it. Pixar's philosophy is realism, and I don't mean in the visual sense. By realism, I mean that their stories deal with realistic issues with consequences and events that feel real to an extend.

I personally believe that people often confuse pessimistic insight with realism. Pessimism is about looking at the negatives and coming up with a negative conclusion, while realism is looking at things how they really are, whether they are good or bad.

The lines you mentioned are, in my opinion, realistic thoughts. When Dash says that by saying everyone is special it means that no one is he means that we often try to make sure EVERYONE is great just to please them rather than making sure their efforts are worth the recognition. OK, this might get confusing, but stay with me...

Yes, everyone is special, unique and talented in their own way. But that doesn't mean that EVERYONE should be rewarded for it. They need to earn it and prove themselves to the world. Imagine if at the Oscars EVERYONE that was nominated won an award, or at the Grammys, or the Emmys, or the Tonys. Those awards are about rewarding excellence in their respective fields. If everyone were to get an award, that means that even the mediocre talent gets recognized. If people want to become the best in their field, they often need to fail before their talents are fully recognized by the world.

To put it in simpler terms, what's the point of being the best that you can be and put effort into growing into a better person if you will be grouped with the other people and be called "the best"?

That's why Dash says that by calling everyone special it means no one is. It is a statement about how we often are afraid of insulting people when applauding their efforts, rewarding everyone instead of giving credit where credit is due.

On another note, you have to remember that when Dash said that he was at an emotional low in the story due to how he was forced to restrain his powers and not be the boy he really is. It could also be interpreted as pessimistic insight caused by the events in the story. After all, he was OK with being in second place just so he doesn't have an unfair advantage over the other runners.

Now, about the artist comment, once again, that's realistic insight. It's true, not EVERYONE can become a great artist. To do that it takes a lot of hard work, perseverance, money, time, patience and the will to keep pushing forward. Many people give up halfway to the finish line and forget about the dream, hence why not everyone can become a great artist. But what Anton Ego says about how a great artist can come from anywhere is that all of us have the basic instinct of pursuing goals in life, regardless of social background, race, gender, political or religious beliefs, that none of those things should be key factors in finding the next great talent.

Take, for example, the famous Susan Boyle, the woman that came from a small village and everyone deemed too uncultured BEFORE she even sang...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPZh4AnWyk

Once she sang, though, the world was enthralled like crazy by her talents. At that point, it didn't matter who she was or where she came from. What mattered is that she had an amazing talent to share with the world.

THIS is what Anton Ego is talking about, that great talent CAN come from anywhere. But what pushes that dream forward is the will of the person to pursue it, and many just can't do that. It doesn't matter if you have all the dreams of the world, if you don't want to pursue them then you can't be "special".

Again, this is what I deem realistic. Pixar stories are realistic, save for a couple of them that mix realistic with idealism, like Cars. It is realistic when the new highway took drivers away from Radiator Springs, and it quickly became to crumble in terms of economic stances. It was idealistic, however, when it sprung back to life thanks to Lightning McQueen being great at the Piston Cup.

In fact, I would deem their movies as being "Realistic idealism", where the ideal view of the world is formed out of the reality the characters face. And that to me is a healthy form of thinking.

Disney Duster wrote:Pap, thank you, and I want to say I agree, the ending of the film is great, because Remy, against all odds, did achieve his dream, but not the same way he dreamed it, perhaps not the same way he wanted, but it still came true, which is how really life mostly is, and we should be taught this.

Not really. Most people will never realize their dreams. And I'm not only talking about poor Third World children who dream about becoming a doctir or lawyer, but are condemned to a life of misery and poverty and possible starvation. I'm also talking about most people in our part of the world. Only a tiny fraction of the people become what they wanted to be, or achieve the goals they wanted to achieve. I don't mean this in a derogatory way, but do you really think that people who make minimum wage with picking up garbage or cleaning toilets are leading the life they had dreamed for themselves? It's really time to wake up from your fantasy world; it's not healthy.

Disney Duster wrote:[...] I have to think Pixar not only has some kind of idea they are more special than others, but they are teaching people that, well, some people are special, others are not. : (

Well, to them I say, anyone can be a great artist.

I don't think that's what Pixar's films are saying. In fact, in keeping with the traditional Hollywood delusional message, I think they're saying the opposite: that everybody can be special. Which isn't true. And no, not everybody can be a great artist. Being a great artist requires talent. Not everybody has talent, or has enough of it. If everybody was an artist, why would we find that special anymore? 'Being special' is about rising above the ordinary. If everybody could do that, there would not be such a thing as 'being special' anymore, because 'special' would then have become ordinary itself.

I still think the makers of this movie should be forced to bathe in skunk-spray for the casting of JTT as Simba. I think it would easily be a less painful experience without his grating antics in the first 30-whatever minutes. Simba wasn't even a character to me when words came out of him. I practically saw Magazine Covers and Dollar Signs spewing from where his eye sockets and mouth-void were meant to be. "Like Me Because I'm Popular," "Feel for My Character Because I Have a Hit Show," "My Fanbase is Mostly Young Girls but I'm Still a Real Symbol of Childhood Masculinity and Not Just a Walking One-Liner with Accompanying Hip Wink."

However, I will forgive the movie for one thing. If there is a statute of limitations on the gross-out jokes, it's time for me to stop persecuting this movie for its' idiocy... I don't care who enjoys farting warthogs. I have to get on with my life.

Lazario wrote:I still think the makers of this movie should be forced to bathe in skunk-spray for the casting of JTT as Simba. I think it would easily be a less painful experience without his grating antics in the first 30-whatever minutes. Simba wasn't even a character to me when words came out of him. I practically saw Magazine Covers and Dollar Signs spewing from where his eye sockets and mouth-void were meant to be. "Like Me Because I'm Popular," "Feel for My Character Because I Have a Hit Show," "My Fanbase is Mostly Young Girls but I'm Still a Real Symbol of Childhood Masculinity and Not Just a Walking One-Liner with Accompanying Hip Wink."

Except JTT played the mischievous, playful lion cub Simba well. How else should he have been played? What would you have changed? Maybe you have blinders on because of your familiarity and intense dislike for the actor, because I thought his performance (particularly the enthusiasm he injected Simba with) was strong.