Disney Duster wrote:Dr. Frankenollie, you can read all I said above to cover a lot, but other than that, no, changes do not always have a bearing on the quality of the movie, though sometimes they can. What I am saying is that in order for these to not just be good movies, but Disney movies, they need to follow the guidelines set by past Disney movies. That includes the kind of changes Walt made, and he never changed his movies' stories as much from the original source material as Tangled did.
Believe it or not, Duster, Walt Disney has been dead for nearly half a century (
). Don't you think the Disney Company could move forward
now? Why does a Disney film have to have a certain number of specific 'Disney' changes to be classed as Disney by you?!
If there is a Disney Essence, then it's (as I've already said) a formula of great characters, great story, great music, great visuals (animation or live-action), and the ability to appeal to people of all ages, and sometimes the characters are looking for 'adventure in the great wide somewhere'.
Thank goodness you don't run the Disney Company, because every Disney film would've focused on fairies, princesses, talking animals and a lot of fantasy.
Yes, there could be a great film with fairies, princesses, talking animals and a lot of fantasy, but there could also be a bad film with fairies, princesses, talking animals and a lot of fantasy.
The difference between your foolish idea of the Disney Essence and mine is that yours is to do with specific kinds of characters and a specific kind of genre, whilst mine is to do with the QUALITY of such things, regardless of whether they're about singing princesses or blue aliens that somehow resemble dogs.
To reiterate: there could be a bad film made using your Disney Essence (as including fairies and princesses isn't enough to produce quality cinema), but a bad film couldn't be made using mine, as if a film has great characters, story, music and visuals at the very least, then it's probably a good movie.
DisneyAnimation88 wrote:I'm sorry but that's wrong, plain and simple. I watched my DVD of The Jungle Book and in the special feature documentaries, it is quite clearly stated that Walt Disney had no intention of remaining true to Kipling's story, going so far as to tell the production staff to not bother even reading the novel they were adapting. Bill Peet left Disney because Walt did not like Peet's original screenplay that was dark and resembled the original story very closely. There's a part where it shows the minutes of a meeting the production team had with Walt where he told them to steer clear of the "icky sticky" original story and instead concentrate on humour. I love The Jungle Book, it is my favourite of all Disney's animated films and that is because of the changes that Walt implemented in the story and the characters that have made it timeless.
I know none of this will matter to you and you will go insisting that you're right due to some kind of technicality but the fact, the solid, undeniable, concrete fact is that Walt Disney had no intention of keeping the original story in his adaptation and implemented changes. They are not "Disney changes", they are changes, the same changes that Disney has made to every story that they have adapted: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Bambi, Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, 101 Dalmatians, The Little Mermaid, Treasure Planet, Pocahontas, Hercules. Some might have undergone more changes that others but you can't create a label like "Disney change" to justify it because you like that particular film or because Walt worked on it. It's what Disney do, it's what they've always done and what they will continue to do in the future.
