DVDizzy Forum

@ Mooky: Interesting things you have to say about Rapunzel (it's called that in The Netherlands and I stubbornly stick to it). I don't agree with all of it, and I certainly don't think PatF was the better movie, but your claims about it "ripping off" parts from other movies do have some merit. For example, I always though the musical scene with the thugs in the Snugly Duckling was hilarious, but it was also very reminiscent of something DreamWorks would do in one of their Shrek movies. And yes, the 'I See The Light' song was not very good, but all songs were weak in my opinion. While I'm typing all this, I'm listening to 'Part Of Your World' from The Little Mermaid, which I watched last week, and while I love Rapunzel, this simply reminds me that Disney will never, ever achieve that level of perfection again.

Lazario wrote:

Heil Donald Duck wrote:Are you sure about this? If so might I recomed you watch the following films insteed.

1. GULLIVER'S TRAVELS (12/22/39) Paramount - Fleischer Studios.
2. MR. BUG GOES TO TOWN (12/4/41) Paramount - Fleischer. 77 mins.
3. 1001 ARABIAN NIGHTS (12/1/59) Columbia - UPA. 76 mins. Starring Mr. Magoo
4. GAY PURR-EE (10/24/62) Warner Bros. - UPA 86 mins.
5. THE INCREDIBLE MR. LIMPET (3/28/64) Warner Bros. (live-action/animation) 102 mins.
6. OF STARS AND MEN (5/13/64) Brandon Films Inc. 53 mins.
7. HEY THERE , IT'S YOGI BEAR (6/3/64) Columbia - Hanna Barbera. 89 mins.
8. THE MAN FROM BUTTON WILLOW (2/1/65) United Screen Artists. 81 mins.
9. ALICE OF WONDERLAND IN PARIS (2/5/66) Rembrant Films. 52 mins. Director: Gene Deitch.
10. THE MAN CALLED FLINTSTONE (8/3/66) Columbia - Hanna-Barbera. 87 mins.
11. THE WACKY WORLD OF MOTHER GOOSE (12/2/67) Embassy Pictures. (Rankin-Bass) 77 mins.

I'm not sure what you're saying. I love Disney to death; I'm not saying I don't. I just think most people appreciate Disney for the wrong reasons. It's like the way some people go SO overboard for Christmas and literally start celebrating in September and don't stop until February: it signals serious regression and a false sense of safety. The movies make them feel so good inside because they're so simplistic in terms of story and characterization. But they don't recognize this. They only focus on how good the movies make them feel, and so they begin to believe the myriad of feelings the movies fill them with are actually inside the movies. That they are a lot more thought-provoking and complex than they really are. And they'll hang these sorts of labels on the films because it makes them seem more high brow. I believe they're fairly high brow too, actually. But because of the art of the high quality animation and the extraordinarily skillfully crafted music, etc. Not because the stories are told in a way I would describe as being groundbreaking, etc. That is, save for a select few films (Sleeping Beauty and Pinocchio being the most obvious).

Thanks for the recommendations, however.

Your original post sounded like you "hated" everything about Walt Disney era films, But I can see your point now. But they were for there time. But if you compare those titles I listed which are all the other hand-drawn animated features released during Walt's life time. I would expect that only thing you would feel come close to Disney are the Fleischer and the UPA features probably the rest doesn't sound so exiting and I have my problem with inclusion of Mr. Limpet since its hybird film. For various of reason none of Disney is other main rivals during the golden age made animated features. Tells lot about the ground braking work Disney was doing. Though its quite fun to compare the Disney shorts with those of others. I think that give better idea what Disney comapred to his rivals was doing in terms of artisc levels and story development but thats another story though. Just read Leonard Maltin's book of Mice and Magic that should give you an idea.

But you named me all the reason though why I want watch animated shorts instead of features. i actually get pissed when pepole things Disney only stands for 50 animated features. And it all started with A mouse.

Yeah- I love the shorts sometimes more than the movies (since they're harder to acquire). I know they're not all the typical slapstick Goofy and Donald, Chip and Dale sort of thing but now there's an era of Disney's animation where I get all warm and fuzzy. In the strangest places, I guess you'd say. Donald Duck can just be waddling and quacking a song to himself, I know he'll do something jerkish later, but it's so nice. It's like a sunny hug. And I think the backgrounds are still stunning. So much incredible animation not simply reserved for the theatrical features. But, then again, the shorts did air theatrically 49 times out of 50, didn't they?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:In my first post in this thread, I said that I felt Sleeping Beauty, Lady and the Tramp and The Little Mermaid are overrated; after fairly recent viewings, I now believe that the latter two are fantastic and can't be rated highly enough, and as for Sleeping Beauty, Philip and Aurora may be bland, but that is really my only problem with the movie. However, I still see The Lion King as somewhat overrated.

"And at last I see the light
And it's like the fog has lifted
And at last I see the light
And it's like the sky is new
And it's warm and real and bright
And the world has somehow shifted
All at once everything looks different
Now that I see *you* (The Little Mermaid, Lady and the Tramp)"

Mooky wrote:Tangled – It's a good, fun film, but nowhere near the masterpiece most people make it out to be. For starters, it's terribly derivative of not only Disney's own previous works, but other animated films as well, bordering on rip-off territory in some cases. Then there's the whole issue of nonsensical/abstract plot points, stock characters and wide spectrum of clichés used. The songs and score pieces (bar one) are less-than-stellar, and the worst of the bunch, the corniest, sappiest, dullest song ever heard in an animated musical -- and that's including Sony Wonder's and Jetlag Productions' DTV fare -- for some reason gets the most love from the fans. Say what you will about The Princess and the Frog (which, no doubt, is at least partially responsible for Tangled's success, and yet gets no credit whatsoever for it), but even though it too relied on Disney tropes and left much to be desired, it did it in a more memorable way and it came out more impressive and remarkable in the end, even if for seemingly trivial reasons such as the race of the heroine.

I agree. See, part of Rapunzel's problem is that it's soo bland. The character designs, the villain, the medieval location / setting, the music, etc. whereas The Princess and the Frog had more appeal as far as character designs, the villain, the New Orleans location / setting and music (which I didn't care for) are concerned. Rapunzel's strength is the well developed relationship between Flynn and Rapunzel, the core of the movie, compared to the half assed handling of Naveen and Tiana's in The Princess and the Frog. Both are flawed movies, and I don't really prefer one over the other. Rapunzel just happens to be highly rated on IMDB (whereas The Princess and the Frog isn't), especially when compared to other DACs, hence I'd consider it overrated.

Beauty and the Beast.

Just re-watched it the other day.

Ugh.

Poor animation; ugly shots of horribly off-model characters; saturday morning cartoon coloring; weak voice cast; plot holes; too much distraction from what should've been the main storyline (Belle and Beast). And *this* got Best Picture nomination?

Snow White- It's the first animated feature, yeah, does it mean it's good? No. Snow White is a terribly one dimensional character if you can even call her a character at all. The story is paper thin, the villain weak and the saviour laughable. Nostalgia held it up, but meh.

Lion King- I don't think it's paced very well after having watched it again. Moves way too fast and tries to squeeze its message in without having done much to prove it applies.

Princess and the Frog- I'm only putting this here because I notice a lot of backlash on Tangled at the moment and how PATF is better lately, and I strongly disagree. PATF is held in high esteem because it tries to bring back Disney's 90s and princess past and is 2D. Tiana may be strong but her relationship with the frog is awful. No development to justify the conclusion. Songs are thrown to throw you off the weak plotting and Dr. Facillier is not a great villain as many have now tried to bring up. Completely follows the stereotypical villain blueprint.

Up- I love Pixar more than this board apparently does, loads of anti-Pixar from what I can remember, but this doesn't hold up at all. The old villain fella is truly awful. I could forgive dogs operating airplanes among other weird things but his motive, his whole subplot is just very, very weak and adds nothing to Carl's relationship with Ellie or the relationship he shares with Russell.

I'm also going to throw in the Toy Story franchise excluding the third, disagreeing with some poster who basically ripped TS3 somewhere in this thread.

BK wrote:I'm also going to throw in the Toy Story franchise excluding the third, disagreeing with some poster who basically ripped TS3 somewhere in this thread.

Lazario wrote:Nice disemboweling job. Too bad you picked a movie that is generally disliked by movie fans.

It's still extremely popular among Disney fans, and even Disney proudly flaunts it every now and then. Besides, it doesn't hurt to gut Pocahontas a bit more .

Lazario wrote:I also disagree with you on Princess and the Frog vs. Tangled. Tangled is easily the more memorable and impressive film.

To each his own, I guess. To me, The Princess and the Frog is a clear winner, at least when artistic credibility / authenticity is concerned. Tangled appears to have suffered storywise due to emphasis being put on technical aspects of the production, such as verisimilitude of CG hair (because realistic hair is exactly what viewers care to see the most in a fantasy film; not to mention they still somehow managed to fail at their own game*). All that visual hoopla basically just served as a façade for sloppy story and underdeveloped characters. For argument's sake, let's just compare main characters in PatF to those in Tangled.

In PatF, you have:
- Tiana - a determined young woman, whose primary interest is not some esoteric freedom/romance/adventure-based dream, but an actual, real life-based goal/achievement. And that's exactly why many Disney fans found her to be dull and boring - for straying away from the Disney heroine/princess archetype (and just to make things clear, Tiana is not among my favorite Disney heroines).
- Naveen - a prince/male character who's only interested in self-indulgence and hedonism (a trait which is sadly underplayed, but it's still there)
- Charlotte - now this is a major precedent for a Disney film: a comic relief character (and a side-character to boot), who by the end of the movie blossoms into a rational adult, and who, despite limited screentime, practically steals away the show from the protagonists. In any other movie, this type of character would probably be turned into a semi-villain sometime by the middle of the movie (i.e. a jealous ex-girlfriend).

Now for Tangled:
- Rapunzel - basically Enchanted's Giselle (her development in the movie even mirrors Giselle's) with hints of Ariel and Quasimodo thrown in. There are, however, moments of pure brilliance done with this character - the 'bipolar' montage in particular - but we never get to see a follow-up to this scene and the character sadly never rises above 'cute and sweet' until the confrontation with Mother Gothel in the end.
- Flynn - an Aladdin/Kuzco/Prince Edward/Naveen combo; it's like they weren't even trying
- Maximus - Pegasus + Toy Story's Bullseye
- Pascal - Flit 2.0.
- Mother Gothel - the only character in the movie who's not an obvious knock-off (despite similarities to Frollo) and appears to have been actually worked on. The only genuine complaint I have about this character is that she awkwardly moves between a full-on villain and, to a lesser degree, a genuinely concerned parent.

It's not very hard to see which characters were given more care. Coupled with the music and the setting (Tangled's setting irritates me to no end - I wrote a bit about it here), PatF is undeniably a more distinguishable film - to me, at least.

Goliath wrote:@ Mooky: Interesting things you have to say about Rapunzel (it's called that in The Netherlands and I stubbornly stick to it). I don't agree with all of it, and I certainly don't think PatF was the better movie, but your claims about it "ripping off" parts from other movies do have some merit. For example, I always though the musical scene with the thugs in the Snugly Duckling was hilarious, but it was also very reminiscent of something DreamWorks would do in one of their Shrek movies. And yes, the 'I See The Light' song was not very good, but all songs were weak in my opinion. While I'm typing all this, I'm listening to 'Part Of Your World' from The Little Mermaid, which I watched last week, and while I love Rapunzel, this simply reminds me that Disney will never, ever achieve that level of perfection again.

I was actually referring to other two scenes: baby kidnapping reminded me of a similar scene in The Secret of the Sword, while the rip-off part was directed at Rapunzel's talent being painting/art. Now, if only there already wasn't a "Rapunzel" movie where that artistic skill was a significant character trait. Oh wait, there is! Please note that Rapunzel being a gifted artist is not a part of the original tale, so it's not like Disney could not have chosen anything else (like playing an instrument, sculpting, or book writing - yes, she does some of those in the film, but not as prominently as painting).

To be honest, "Snuggly Duckling" ruffians singing seems like a typical Disney thing to me; you know, not exactly the classic show-stopper number like "Prince Ali" or "Under The Sea", but a slightly less-extravagant sequence, much like "Gaston", or "A Girl Worth Fighting For". The only DreamWorks-y vibe (and I hate that term for I truly believe DreamWorks is undeservedly despised around this forum) I recognized is that aura of pompousness and cheekiness present in Flynn's personality.

I totally agree on "Part Of Your World".

jpanimation wrote:I agree. See, part of Rapunzel's problem is that it's soo bland. The character designs, the villain, the medieval location / setting, the music, etc. whereas The Princess and the Frog had more appeal as far as character designs, the villain, the New Orleans location / setting and music (which I didn't care for) are concerned. Rapunzel's strength is the well developed relationship between Flynn and Rapunzel, the core of the movie, compared to the half assed handling of Naveen and Tiana's in The Princess and the Frog. Both are flawed movies, and I don't really prefer one over the other. Rapunzel just happens to be highly rated on IMDB (whereas The Princess and the Frog isn't), especially when compared to other DACs, hence I'd consider it overrated.

Thank you, very well put. Precisely the point I was trying to make. Both movies have their shortcomings, but PatF gets way too much bad rep, even though I still think it's a creatively superior movie.

*How did all of this…



…get to be only this long?

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Aladdin- Apart from ''A whole new world'' (and jasmine)what was so good about this movie??

The colourful and positively perfect animation, witty lyrics/memorable music in each song, great voice cast, hilarious jokes, well-rounded and well-designed characters, and finally the fact that it features Disney's greatest and most likable hero. I don't understand why you think Jasmine is better than all of these things.

After just rematching it (been a long fucking time ), on youtube(yeah, I don't own most of the dvds, just BATB and Tarzan), I must say its a really good movie, I like pretty much every thing about it, except at times Aladdins voice, which sometimes has a nasal tone. But I do like his personality, so hes still very much likeable to me.

So yeah, i take back what I said..

Dr Frankenollie wrote:Why?

Most are good but not amazing, as the majority makes them seem; Amazing- Maybe only toy story, others were either just good (Ratatouille) or just ok (Up).[/i]

5star wrote:So yeah, i take back what I said..

Oh good.

5Star wrote:Most are good but not amazing, as the majority makes them seem; Amazing- Maybe only toy story, others were either just good (Ratatouille) or just ok (Up).[/i]

What?! Where is the dislike for Up coming from?

I have to say Tangled; I recently watched it and hardly found it as appealing as most people on here. It's just kind of bland to me and I much prefer the previous princess/fairy tale films.

To me, "The Princess and the Frog" is not underrated...only in this forum for some reason. I saw "Tangled" in theaters 10 times (don't judge), mostly because it was for a year long project, and the different people I took to see it with me each time all said they liked "Princess and the Frog" better, no joke. While on this forum, most posters thought "Tangled" was better. I like them both equally.

In fact, my old roommate's girlfriend used to work in Party City and she said their Tangled stuff was NOT selling at all and they had to reduce the amount, while people and parents were demanding Princess and the Frog stuff.

Dr Frankenollie wrote:

qindarka wrote:Snow White -- Thin plot stretched over an overly long running time and the entire middle section, while containing scenes that can be individually entertaining hardly contribute to the plot. Also, the Queen is a rather weak villain who is overly hammy and big on unnecessary and poorly delivered lines. Nowhere close to being the best Disney film even though I admit that overall, despite these flaws its a decent enough movie.

What do you mean by the phrase 'thin plot'? Do you mean that the plot is too simplistic? Well...what's the problem with that? The running time is hardly long; it's the usual running time for a Disney movie, but I infer that you mean the plot is so thin that it the usual running time wasn't necessary. However, your points for why it was stretched out are incorrect.

You say that there are scenes which don't contribute to the plot; I assume you mean most of the Dwarfs' scenes, but those are absolutely necessary. Why? Because like most great movies, Snow White's story is driven by characters, not the plot, and the scenes with the Dwarfs are used to make us like them and in order to differentiate each of them.

The Wicked Queen is hardly weak - in both sides of her role, Lucille LaVerne uses great and now iconic voices that breathe life into the Queen, as well as her uglier alter ego. The transformation scene is utterly thrilling and one of cinema's greatest moments (due to the surrealistic revolving of the animation camera, editing, unsettling musical score and the Queen's voice-over describing what's happening to her), and so is the opening.

Both the Queen and the Hag have great presence and although the latter is a little hammy, LaVerne's portrayal of her and Joe Grant's grotesque design ensure that she is more creepy than amusing despite the melodramatic dialogue.

qindarka wrote:Fantasia - Half of the sequences are simply not entertaining and even those which are stretch too long, contributing to an overly long running time whereby half of it is spent in boredom. Also often said to 'be ahead of its time' though that would imply that this sort of film became popular later on.

Perhaps you enjoy more fast-paced or traditionalistic entertainment, because Fantasia is entertaining in an unique sense. It's a thought-provoking piece of high art, and even if you don't watch the images the music alone is greatly compelling. Furthermore, even if you find some of the sequences rather slow-paced, you can still appreciate the superb visuals and editing.

qindarka wrote:WALL-E- Watched it in a bad frame of mind and may not have been paying full attention but parts of the film do seem boring and it does seem badly paced. Will probably have to rewatch it to have a more accurate assessment but as for the moment, I cannot understand all the praise heaped upon it.

You're right - you will probably have to rewatch it to make an accurate assessment, because your criticisms of the movie sound like a child's. The movie's pacing is fine, and it's not boring in the slightest.

I admit that I may have been a tad harsh on Snow White, mostly as a result of the critical acclaim it garners, which in my opinion is undeserved.
The main issue I have had with it is that many sequences do not really build-up the plot. However, I watched all the DAC's in order having watched only 4 previously and the musical numbers which I used to find distracting should be much more palatable now.

I do still stand by my point that some sequences do not advance the plot and last too long. For example, the washing up sequence. I'm not sure how effective it is in establishing the dwarves' characters and their bond to Snow White given that they already like her and are eager to please her right off the bat. The dwarves' character, I feel, had already been sufficiently developed in scenes where they find Snow White in their house. The exception is of course, Grumpy, but I do not find his character development too convincing, especially looking at this scene. In the next scene (Someday My Prince Will Come), it was shown that Grumpy has softened towards Snow White slightly. I do not understand how being forced to wash up by the other dwarves would soften him towards Snow White instead of making him even more resentful. I think there needed to be more interactions between Snow White and Grumpy to get his development across properly.

Also, me previously saying that the Queen was a poor villain might ave been an exaggeration. Still, I think she is one of Disney's weaker ones. In her human form, she works fine and the transformation scene is great. However, as the hag, she delivers some lines horribly and those lines, fairly or not, are my defining memory of her.

Regarding Fantasia, I admit that I have never been too concerned about animation quality and do have a preference towards films with plots. Two hours is still a very long time to just be admiring the animation quality with little else going for it. I am not sure how much I can credit the movie for the music, considering that the music isn't original. There are good sequences though (Sorcerer's Apprentice, Night on Bald Mountain).

I have re watched WALL-E and unfortunately, I find it even worse than before. It isn't really boring but I never found it engaging either. Also, I thought the plot ran on ridiculous contrivances. For example, WALL-E and EVE could only find the plant because EVE wanted to send WALL-E home out of annoyance and they magically come across the plant in the same pod. As for how EVE got annoyed with WALL-E, it was because WALL-E thought that EVE was being destroyed because some sounds conveniently appeared to make him think EVE was screaming. I know that there are contrivances in all works of fiction but this is especially blatant.

I also thought the romance was poorly done. WALL-E behaves like a child throughout and seems to be more in love with the idea of love as shown by him watching those videos in the beginning. Then the first female pops up and he falls in love with her at first sight, despite EVE behaving like a bitch towards him. I know she does soften up but she is still quick to turn on him (sandstorm, lost plant). Then she does reciprocate his feelings, but only after he retrieves the plant for her. I may be the only person who thinks this, but I don't like those connotations.

The humans (really only the captain) also seem to have learned nothing. The captain is initially enthralled about returning to earth and then there is a good scene where he learns that Earth is in a really bad state. However, this scene seems to have been forgotten and by the end, he is yapping about pizza plants again like an idiot.

There is a 15 minute period near the end which was pretty good and there were some powerful moments, such as the captain standing up to defeat AUTO, but as a whole, I think the movie fails and don't understand the accolades heaped upon it.

I do apologize if I have been unable to translate my thoughts into words coherently and if my opinions have caused offence, especially regarding WALL-E (where my opinions are firmly in the minority).

My only real beef with Fantasia is the silly sequence with the little cupid cherubs and the centaur/ette mating. It's just plain absurd. And if you actually buy it as cutesy, you know it's TOO MUCH. That's probably why you like it. And of course, that actually chips away quite a bit at the film's masterpiece status for me. But in general, yeah it's just about freaking perfect. That "2 hours is a bit long" thing is nothing but a personal objection. One that vanishes amid the film's general magnificence.

Although, I do seem to need to make a new entry here:

What the flying HELL is up with people actually not hating all the Disney cheapquels? I rightly posted the Alice "but I don't want to go among mad people" clip when I really wanted to post Gomez Addams' "HAS THE PLANET GONE MAD?!" from Addams Family Values. I forgive 1 and 1 ONLY Disney cheapquel- Return of Jafar. Because it likely was the first, and it managed to make me care about Iago. Beyond that, they are all perfect examples of the studio's careless, insulting money-grubbing practices and ridicule all fans who took the previous films for being anything other than drivel.

I remember my mom gushing about how great Finding Nemo is (Dory is her favorite character in it) back in early 2005 and we watched the DVD together so I could see it for the first time. After we finished watching it I was underwhelmed. The film looks fantastic but the story was meh.

Goliath wrote:I always though the musical scene with the thugs in the Snugly Duckling was hilarious, but it was also very reminiscent of something DreamWorks would do in one of their Shrek movies.

For me, the scene is reminiscent of this:
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dLHpuXLpazs" frameborder="0"></iframe>

Lazario wrote: What the flying HELL is up with people actually not hating all the Disney cheapquels? I rightly posted the Alice "but I don't want to go among mad people" clip when I really wanted to post Gomez Addams' "HAS THE PLANET GONE MAD?!" from Addams Family Values. I forgive 1 and 1 ONLY Disney cheapquel- Return of Jafar. Because it likely was the first, and it managed to make me care about Iago. Beyond that, they are all perfect examples of the studio's careless, insulting money-grubbing practices and ridicule all fans who took the previous films for being anything other than drivel.

It's Simple:

Their taste does not need to follow yours.

Super Aurora, as usual, you're neither as impartial or jovial as you make yourself out to be.

It's all the more annoying that you have the nerve to say that after trying to school me on Sleeping Beauty, then you take issue with people who don't like The Lion King. You sure cared what people thought of those movies then. Now suddenly you don't care what people like??

Can you, FOR ONCE, take a position and stick to it? Otherwise, don't reply to me anymore. I am sick to death of your two-faced facetiousness.

Lazario wrote:Super Aurora, as usual, you're neither as impartial or jovial as you make yourself out to be.

Others here will disagree with your statement on that. You just get easily offended just like Goliath have said multiple times.


I don't care what people think about those movies. And if I do, it's very very minor that I forget it altogether later on. With Sleeping Beauty it was you seems to want know why I have had any sort of criticism on the movie. I replied back my answers, but it must of not satisfy you and thus felt the need to continue on. With the Lion King, I admit my slight bias for the film due to African nature of the film, however, I don't think my opinion on the film is better than others.

However, what it seems to me just by reading many of your posts is that you seems to think your taste and opinion is superior to others and thus anyone who has a taste or opinion of something that you could not grasp to accept or understand why someone would like/hate it, as like the sequels some may like here, you find it baffling. Sleeping Beauty drama was good example of it.

SWille! was right in that one post he made in respond to your same question about the sequels.

Lazario wrote:Otherwise, don't reply to me anymore. I am sick to death of your two-faced facetiousness.

Lazario wrote:My only real beef with Fantasia is the silly sequence with the little cupid cherubs and the centaur/ette mating. It's just plain absurd. And if you actually buy it as cutesy, you know it's TOO MUCH. That's probably why you like it. And of course, that actually chips away quite a bit at the film's masterpiece status for me. But in general, yeah it's just about freaking perfect. That "2 hours is a bit long" thing is nothing but a personal objection. One that vanishes amid the film's general magnificence.

Although, I do seem to need to make a new entry here:

What the flying HELL is up with people actually not hating all the Disney cheapquels? I rightly posted the Alice "but I don't want to go among mad people" clip when I really wanted to post Gomez Addams' "HAS THE PLANET GONE MAD?!" from Addams Family Values. I forgive 1 and 1 ONLY Disney cheapquel- Return of Jafar. Because it likely was the first, and it managed to make me care about Iago. Beyond that, they are all perfect examples of the studio's careless, insulting money-grubbing practices and ridicule all fans who took the previous films for being anything other than drivel.

Well, most criticisms do stem from personal objections. How is my 'personal objection' invalid?

And I'm not sure why you are bringing up the sequels in this thread. I'm not sure that any of the sequels are overrated.

qindarka wrote:Well, most criticisms do stem from personal objections. How is my 'personal objection' invalid?

Because you're criticizing it for what it did right. I'm really holding onto the 2-hour long complaint when I say that. So, for example- do you recall hearing the objection people had to Snow White when they told Walt Disney no one could sit through an 80-minute animated film? That that would be too long? So, doesn't it make sense when the format is changed to visual interpretations of classical music and that the film was intended (at any stage of its' inception) to be an epic, that it would be meant to feel like one? That it should be 2 hours long? I mean, divorcing all the critical praise the film's already received (which is heaping). I think you object to the idea of it more than the execution. That's how I think a personal objection invalidates your criticism somewhat. There are plenty of people who have no problem sitting through a 2-hour film like this.

Apart from that, I have absolutely no idea. I certainly wouldn't be making this argument if I had thought the film left me cold. As a kid, I think it bored me. Now, it floors me- leaves me breathless. I admit, my being impressed by the film plays a part in this. But, if I look at something else you said, the movie did re-conduct the music. Which is supposed to be common in classical music used for musical film / stage productions. So, even that is considered unique (if not original) to Disney's production. And the tone of the imagery falls beautifully in line (most of the time) with the music. Their interpretation- so, I'd say it was pretty original. It was about the inspiration the music provided. Which makes it amazing to me they were able to make it feel like a film, to take the idea of artistic inspiration and make it a kind of visual story. Only the Bach intro of the movie didn't have a visual story to it.

qindarka wrote:And I'm not sure why you are bringing up the sequels in this thread. I'm not sure that any of the sequels are overrated.

Well, I'm bitching more because they're more popular than they should be. You know there has to be some reason they keep making them. And do you think Disney would ever admit they're making terrible sequels- drive down their value? Take the risk people wouldn't buy them? I think - and these Blu-Rays of shit like Bambi II and the Beauty and the Beast sequels, now the Lion King sequels, go a long way in backing me up - that they're putting them out with the originals to keep making people want to buy them. Gee, what problem could I have with that? The idea that people have money to burn in the midst of a psychotically dire economic crisis. Or the cheapening of the original films in how they're being released. The further degradation of the integrity of classic Disney.

And... I also resent the fact that I have to say this. If Disney would find somewhere else to hock their other shitty products- fine. Don't they still have lots of whorry kids' stars on their TV shows and ridiculous music label to pimp? In my opinion, Disney are making this personal. I think I'm entitled to a little bitching. Maybe I could have worded it better.

Super Aurora wrote:However, what it seems to me just by reading many of your posts is that you seems to think your taste and opinion is superior to others

My opinion of what? I am talking about how disgusting it is that Disney pisses all over their own movies with insulting sequels and how fans support this because either they think they're supporting Disney by watching them or they don't care about the integrity of the films. But, I know the latter of that isn't true. Ask Jay. Ask Duster. Ask me. People on this board DO care about Disney's integrity. And Disney themselves do not. That's what this is about. This is NOT a subjective "I like this movie and if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot." This is an objective criticism of why people are choosing to support Disney's sequels.

Super Aurora wrote:I don't care what people think about those movies. With Sleeping Beauty it was you seems to want know why I have had any sort of criticism on the movie.

Bullshit. I've seen you go after people who praise the movie without me being in any way involved. Not that you crossed the line, I'm not saying that. But I am saying that you are hypocritical- you do care what other people think. You complained when people were too hard on The Lion King and you complain when people are complementary of Sleeping Beauty. This is a fact. You play it off like you never made a big deal of it but I've seen you do it frequently enough. Not to mention your reasoning on defending the Lion King was absurd- you criticized anyone for disliking it stating that it seemed like they were disliking it just to be different. As though no one could have a valid reason for disliking it. Like that isn't putting words in people's mouths? I'd say you must have cared what people thought when you said that.

You shouldn't have stuck your nose in here. I had every right to be at least a little bit peeved that Disney at times treats their sequels better than they do their originals, thanks to the support they're getting from people buying them. It's downright ELITIST for anyone to suggest that - for example - because they bought the Platinum Editions of Bambi, Aladdin, Cinderella, etc(.) when they were first released that no one has the right to bitch about the moratorium policy. Members of this board have had their copies of DVD's damaged in floods or had to sell their DVD's to make ends-meet. They should be able to purchase new copies of these DVD's if they want following these extreme circumstances without having to hunt around on eBay and dodge bootlegs. Are Disney just going to hand out new copies? Not unless that whole Register Your DVD thing works better than it likely does. Even then, they don't just give copies away. Which, given the exclusivity of the releases, they should do if they can't be bothered to leave them in print for over 5 years or port over all the old bonus features onto new editions. Can they be bothered to do either? No. They say "fuck you" because they're greedy assholes. An attitude I'd be outraged to find fans and buyers shared.

That's what I was talking about. Yet, given how DEEPLY pissed I am at Disney, I still kept myself in check regarding other members of this board. I wasn't naming names or technically shaming anyone (Disney are free to accept all the blame for continuing to produce the sequels if that makes people here feel better). And I didn't reply back to SWillie! or Julian Carter or anyone who disagreed with me with insults or character assassinations. Unlike you. So, exactly why the fuck do you think this is about my superiority? What this was about was making sure I was given the same chance to be heard as anyone else on something that was really important to me. Course now it's about you either telling me I have no right to be pissed about Disney's outrageous decision to treat the sequels with the same regard as the originals (which they sure as hell do when they pair them up as they've started with Fantasia and Fox and the Hound- and will likely be doing again when re-releases of 101 Dalmatians, Peter Pan, Jungle Book, Lady and the Tramp, and Cinderella are on the slate). Or that I care about looking better than others. I'm not a fool. Enough people have already made a big deal of the "what if everyone thought the same way" theory and I don't want everyone to think like me. But I do want them to think about how doing certain things affects what we both care about. (Disney for instance.)