You have as much right to post an opinion and debate as anyone, Disney Duster -- Don't be intimidated. Let your Walt flag fly with pride!
I'm not familiar with issues carried over from other threads, but the three (of four) questions Duster posed to me above seemed like totally relevant debate points, simply stated - and the subject was on-topic, so not a derailing. For my part, I didn't mind addressing or clarifying the ideas whatsoever. Duster's point-of-view and passion shouldn't be legislated. That's part of the fun of mutual conversation!
Last edited by merlinjones on Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:59 am, edited 10 times in total.
^ Please name one other member who has started the same debate in over 12 irrelevant threads? I can find no one. This debate has become disruptive to the forum and to the enjoyment of other users.
It has gone from 'Walt flag' to a Walt blitzkrieg.
I have stated my 2 cents - I have spoken on behalf of myself and others and do not intend to be mean or a bully - I hope Disney Duster understands what I have stated on the previous page.
merlinjones wrote:You have as much right to post an opinion and debate as anyone, Disney Duster -- Don't be intimidated. Let your Walt flag fly with pride!
No one is denying Disney Duster the right to post in this or any other thread, nor do I think anyone is trying to intimidate him, but look at the title of this thread. It's a bit of fun so why does Disney Duster take it so seriously and challenge what is basically just a hypothetical fantasy?
Disney Geek wrote:I thought so, I just felt it would've been childish and presumptious to post something along the lines of "And why might that be? >giggles and bats eyelashes<" Sorry if I caused you any
No apologies needed. I'm not ashamed to admit I like Selena Gomez and think she's a pretty young woman; and that, when flipping the channels and coming across her show, I keep watching till the end because of her. What other reason could a grown man have to watch Wizards of Waverly Places?
Besides (and I don't just say this because I like her), I've watched some of the other Disney Channel shows and I think Selena is the only one out off all the 'teen stars' with real comedic talent. She's very good at playing the sarcastic, wise-cracking, know-it-all character Alex Russo. Seems like she's 'one' with the character. She makes her acting seem casual and natural, whereas the performances of Miley Cyrus and Demi Lovato and the others are very artificial and over-the-top.
So, to stay on-topic, if I were in charge of Disney, I would keep Selena under contract and give her new shows after Wizards ends.
Goliath wrote:So, to stay on-topic, if I were in charge of Disney, I would keep Selena under contract and give her new shows after Wizards ends.
I happen to love Wizards and look forward to new episodes whenever they appear on Netflix (we don't bother with cable). Selena makes the show with her character, and David Henrie's pretty awesome too. I mainly watch for the comedy, unfortunately I don't expect much from the story arcs, which leave much to be desired . . . they could use some better writers.
enigmawing wrote:I happen to love Wizards and look forward to new episodes whenever they appear on Netflix (we don't bother with cable). Selena makes the show with her character, and David Henrie's pretty awesome too. I mainly watch for the comedy, unfortunately I don't expect much from the story arcs, which leave much to be desired . . . they could use some better writers.
Yeah, the stories are really silly, but it's intended to be a silly show aimed at (pre-)teens, so in that respect, it works.
Goliath wrote:Yeah, the stories are really silly, but it's intended to be a silly show aimed at (pre-)teens, so in that respect, it works.
Oh, I don't mind the silly plots at all, what bothers me is when the more serious aspects of the story don't work. I got a lot of that with the whole Wizards vs. Werewolves arc with Juliet and Mason, but that's just me being nitpicky on a show that's not supposed to be serious in the first place.
Neal wrote:Someone mentioned a midwest Disney park - I've always thought about putting one in my home state of Wisconsin in what we call the 'Dells.
Ooh, I miss the Dells! I almost got a job there a few years back. It certainly could use a Disney touch, and I imagine it would bring even more tourism that could benefit the entire area.
Nobody should shut up or leave, as far as I'm concerned. Everybody has a right to voice their opinion, even when it drives me crazy.
enigmawing wrote:Oh, I don't mind the silly plots at all, what bothers me is when the more serious aspects of the story don't work. I got a lot of that with the whole Wizards vs. Werewolves arc with Juliet and Mason, but that's just me being nitpicky on a show that's not supposed to be serious in the first place.
There are serious aspects to the show? I never noticed. But I don't know that story arc you're talking about. Like I said, I watch because Selena is in it.
Neal, first, thank you for taking the long time to write out a really thoughtful and thought-provoking message to me out of concern and care. I will say, you could have just said I need to "stop" instead of "shut up", so you could apologize for that, but you don't need to, whatever, that's not the issue now.
Next, Spyro always looked cute and cool to me. I remember him changing and I thought it was weird but not that much, he wasn't as dear to me as he is to you or as Disney is to me (and perhaps you too), which leads me to believe the kind of people who like the changes to Disney, well...Disney is trying to get the non-Disney fans who don't even care about Disney into theaters with their changes, aren't they? : (
I actually think they shouldn't have gone so far with Spyro. When I first saw your comparison, I thought it was actually a big, bad change! At least they should have tried to keep his eyes more the same.
However, and remember this will be long and you will see where I agree with you and consent to you so much, but I have to say, what happened with you is different in some ways. Your video games are not owned by the same studio like Disney owns all their movies. Disney also has an official canon. As far as I'm aware, with Spyro, and many, many other video games, there is no canon. You can choose to accept a game or not. I cannot do that with the DAC's. Well, I can, but I know it will not be "official", and I will still know something else that is different from Spyro: That one man made his studio with certain kinds of entertainment and certain dreams, and all his films were like that, and then he trusted his workers to continue that kind of entertainment and dream.
There are also some things I'd like to point out that you got wrong. One is that I don't just like the Walt Era Disney. I think Disney had their essence right up until Home on the Range, or perhaps before that, up to Fantasia 2000, before they started doing loony, weird, Warner Brothers-y Dreamworks-y Pixar-y CGI, sci-fi, non-classic stuff. Hopefully through all those words, you, and everyone (oh man I wish for everyone) finally gets, or sorta gets, what I mean. Until then, they kept the Disney essence for that long.
You said the Disney essence was man made? If you mean that it was invented by a man named Walt Disney and he made a studio that was supposed to have it, then I would agree. At least it did exist in that man, and he put it in his films, and somehow, his artists, who weren't him, were still able to use it, and maybe future ones can. And by the way, the 12 or so threads I talked about the Disney essence were never meant to be thread-derailing debates about the Disney essence, they were me saying "I don't think this film/this thing fits the Disney essence" which appropriately pertained to the threads, but then everyone wanted to argue with me and I had to respond and so on.
The second thing is you threw out the word compromise, saying no matter how many people tried to compromise, you would go against it. As of yet, I cannot recall anyone who compromised with me. I compromised myself when I thought maybe Lilo & Stitch could be very Disney if they made it less violent, less weird, and Stitch had more of a cute Disney animal look and hints of a soul from the beginning instead of an outright all-destroying monster who became good by pretty much being forced to. If you disagree with any of those points being the case, okay, that's your opinion, but the point here is that I compromised. I'm even willing to not be so against Tangled if the title was fixed. But no one seems to want to compromise.
That's another thing, "if I was a Disney CEO", I would not keep Disney from doing any of their recent movies and make them fail as you said I would. I would try to compromise. I would just try to get in as much Disney as possible. People would still have seen Lilo and Stitch if it was less violent! Tangled might have made slightly less money if named Rapunzel, or if the prince stayed a prince, but it still would've been the same movie with the same personalities everyone loved, and still made at least two thirds of what it did, if not more, or even the same amount. True, Rapunzel needed lots of money to make back its cost...but the thing is, Disney will never run out of money, never be in danger of failing. Pixar recently made a butt load of cash with one of their worst reviewed movies ever, Pixar and all of Disney's other commodities will always make them money. And home video and princess merchandise would make Rapunzel make back it's cost eventually. And Voyage of the Dawn Tredor was just not that good a movie, I bet people were just trying to figure out why and just said it was because it was too old feeling.
Honestly, any CGI movie that's flashy will sell for Disney if they make it look funny in the trailers. As long as Rapunzel had the same funny trailers, it would've selled the same.
Anyway, I have a story to tell you, but it will be small. First, Rapunzel was coming and I wasn't sure what to think of it because it was CGI and before it was Rapunzel Unbraided, but when I heard it was going to be the real Rapunzel story, with CGI that looked like old Disney hand-painted movies, I was happy. When they announced the title change, I didn't believe it, I thought it couldn't really stay that way after people complained on the internet. And then, and then, they showed a concept art of a storybook opening for it, and I was EXTREMELY EXTREMELY HAPPY like I had not been in YEARS!!! No exaggeration there, I cannot even begin to describe... And then...the film came out without the opening, and much worse, with the title Tangled. I was heartbroken, laughing at any fun or funny moments in the film over a sick feeling in my chest. Later on, I finally protested the Tangled title, after it was released to DVD. I know that sounds too late. It was because I didn't know what to do, I didn't know how best to protest before, but when it came out that sent me into action. I thought that after Tangled made so much money, maybe the Disney money grubbers wouldn't care what it was called. But my protest didn't even make any news that I knew of. Thinking that was the last hope, I did leave UD, this forum. It was for like three months. I guess not everyone noticed. During that time, I was very unhappy. That was the reason I left in the first place. Because I had no faith, hope, or happiness in Disney anymore.
Then I came back. And I got happier. Because I got back hope again, and I was telling people about what I think Disney should be doing again.
I was one voice. Maybe you are right that one voice can't change things. But what if it was more than just once voice? What if it was a lot of people? What if it was a lot of fans all over the internet? What if we tried to think of how to let Disney know that they can't ignore who they are? I feel like Mufassa, I wanna tell Disney "Remember who you are."
If you can understand what I mean, I'm not sure why everyone here didn't tell me as thoughtfully as you, but I'm thinking lots of other people can or already have gotten what I mean, and they just didn't want to believe it because they didn't want to believe anything was wrong at Disney or they thought they couldn't change it.
But why not change it? Why not band together and discuss how we could try to tell Disney to think about who they are a little more when they make a new film? Actually, I think just getting them to change the title back to Rapunzel would be symbolic of that, and perhaps enough. I'll even write to Floyd Norman and see what he thinks. I really mean this. Everyone who believes Disney needs to be more true to itself, would you please band together with me to try and tell Disney that? Perhaps by first getting them to change the title back?
And why shouldn't Disney change the game, too? Toy Story and Finding Nemo made everyone want CGI when they didn't want or care about it before, maybe Disney can make everyone crazy for hand-drawn again? If not, Disney can still do some hand-drawn every once in a while, while their CGI and Pixar's CGI pull in the bigger bucks.
Last edited by Disney Duster on Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:34 am, edited 3 times in total.
DisneyDuster wrote:If you can understand what I mean, I am not sure why everyone here didn't tell me as thoughtfully as you, but I'm thinking lots of other people can or already have gotten what I mean, then, and just didn't want to believe it because they didn't want to believe anything was wrong at Disney or they thought they couldn't change it.
Speaking only of Disney animation, they've got good and experienced leadership in Lasseter and Catmull after getting rid of the cost-weary David Stainton; Tangled was enormously successful both critically and commercially, reminiscent of the Renaissance films; according to one of the their producers, Peter del Vecho, they have more films in development than they could ever put into production; they're working on more original projects as well as traditional fairytales like Snow Queen. If there ever was a time to believe that things are looking positive for Disney animation, it seems to be that this is it. Of all the things at Disney, animation is one of the few right now that seems to be doing well; it makes a nice change from the end of the Eisner era.
If anything, I would like Disney to show some respect to their older animated films that aren't fairytales or Renaissance films and put them back into the public domain. Give films like The Rescuers and Hercules some love and it will encourage younger viewers to explore the whole catalogue of Disney's animated films, not just the princess films that Disney focus on because they sell merchandise. And rejuvenate the shorts, make hand-drawn shorts that have the charm and humour of those that Walt made that bring a bit of Disney tradition to the Disney Channel. They're capable of it so why not look at their history and use it to rejuvenate their future?
DisneyDuster wrote:But why not change it? Why not band together and discuss how we would try to tell Disney to think about who they are a little more when they make a new film. Actually, I think just getting them to change the title back to Rapunzel would be symbolic of that, and perhaps enough. I'll even write to Floyd Norman and see what he thinks.
I really don't think they are going to change the tile of a film that has already had it's theatrical and DVD/Blu-Ray releases and done very well as Tangled has, not to mention the extent of merchandise that has "Tangled" all over it. I don't really understand the fuss over the title change but I wouldn't be against it if, hypothetically, it was reversed. Sadly, I think that ship has long since sailed.
DisneyDuster wrote:If not, Disney can still do soem hand-drawn every once in a while, while their CGI and Pixar's CGI pull in the bigger bucks.
That's what they're doing with the Mickey Mouse and Clements/Musker hand-drawn films apparently in development. So that's one reason to be optimistic (if they happen)
I feel like Mufassa, I wanna tell Disney "Remember who you are."
I agree to an extent. Let's start with Mickey Mouse, the cornerstone of Disney animation and rejuvenate his career in an original full-length feature.
Neal wrote:^ Please name one other member who has started the same debate in over 12 irrelevant threads? I can find no one. This debate has become disruptive to the forum and to the enjoyment of other users.
For what it's worth, Duster's posts have never bothered me In fact, I agree with some of his opinions and his passion to do right by Walt's legacy.
You cannot have classic Disney in 2011. You can have classic elements - Tangled and Pooh are proof of that - but ultimately to stay afloat, you have to be somewhat edgy, somewhat adult. Today's children are more foul-mouthed and more corrupted each year. I cannot believe what fifth graders today say to middle schoolers / college kids - such disrespectful things
This is really sad. I was reading on another forum about a parent saying their EIGHT year old thought they were too old and "cool" to see the new Pooh movie and wanted to see the PG-13 rated Potter instead. It's sad that little kids are in such a hurry to "grow up" and lose that innocent spark and sense of wonder these days... something I try so hard to hold on to as a 30 + year-old "adult". And I feel like I've been about as successful as one can be in these cynical times in which we live. It feels kind of ironic to apparently be more in touch with my "inner child" than many actual children!
Anyway, hang in there, Duster
"Feed the birds, tuppence a bag"- Mary Poppins
"How high does the sycamore grow? If you cut it down, then you'll never know"- Pocahontas
"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether he be six or sixty. Call the child innocence." - Walt Disney
