DVDizzy Forum

@ Disney's Divinity, You've brought up a very good argument and it definitely makes the film shine under new light for me. I am a 90's Disney kid so I have been comparing TPaTF to the releases from that decade. I can honestly say that I didn't love TPaTF but I'm actually going to re watch it tonight and see if I appreciate it more after reading your post.

@ Goliath, I've been a long time lurker on this forum and I always enjoy your posts, In fact I tend to agree with your thoughts more than half of the time.

I personally prefer discussions like this one versus color palettes on BatB or what special features Fantasia is missing. This keeps the forum interesting for me. Lets just "agree to disagree".

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise. You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

I don't wanna be cheeky, but how do you know we all have the feeling it's "un-Disney"? Can you claim to read our minds? Just because you may not like the idea, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily "un-Disney" in our eyes. As for the point of comparison, let's look at it this way. Computers were, generally speaking, the realm of scientists, so they wouldn't have fit into most films, Disney or none. Video-games are, however, commonplace in homes around the globe, just as how computers are. Complaining about that sort of thing appearing in any Disney film would in principal be like slamming 101 Dalmatians for including scenes where the characters watch TV or Saludos Amigos for including a segment featuring planes. Does everything have to take place "once upon a time in a land far away"?

One of the things that has always been embraced by animators, and perhaps the only reason why it has lasted and will continue to do so, is the idea of exploring the impossible and unreachable. With just a click of a few pixels, art tools or lumps of clay, the impossible becomes plausible. Entering the world of video games should just be as valid a thing to do in animation as watching a pumpkin getting turned into a coach, seeing the world from a dog's view, or watching toys, household objects and vehicles come to life. As I've said, I personally think that, based on its overall premise and what we know already, Joe Jump/Reboot Ralph would work better as a featurette (something around the 20-30 minute mark). But something that the big Walty D would disapprove of? Well, I should be going to a seance next Thursday, so I'll ask him then. Then we'll know.

Super Aurora wrote:lol at autistic people and their pointless raging.

As an autistic, I find *my* rage more often than not has a point to it.

DisneyJedi just doesnt understand that Goliath has a right to voice his opinion.

And then again, Goliath doesnt only voice, but parades his opinions around here. And then again, a lot of us do.

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

Says you. Disney can make whatever the fuck they feel like.

Disney Duster wrote:None of you will convince me otherwise. You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

It's fine that you feel that way but don't think we really think or have the "feeling" the same as you.

this is what many people here get annoyed with you about.


Wonderlious's respond is also note worthy to read.

Disney Duster wrote:Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

Computers can play video games LOL.

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise. You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

So, I guess if I were your Secret Santa this year, sending you a copy of "Tron" is out of the question?

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise.

I don't think anyone wants to try. It's easier to let you live in your own little world where you're Walt's personal ambassador from the great beyond.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Reboot Ralph is still going to happen. TRON and TRON Legacy already happened. And computers have even been used as a tool in hand-drawn animation. No amount of "It's un-Disney!" whining will change that.

Disney Duster wrote:You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but you don't know what I feel. You do not have telepathic powers, you cannot peer into my brain and know what my thoughts and feelings are at any given moment on any given subject. How DARE you presume to think you can.

Disney Duster wrote:Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

Rent "Walt Disney Treasures: Walt's Tomorrowland". The guy was interested in much more than drawing fairy tales, you know. If you strived to learn more about him beyond animated features, you'd know that. Just because there's no proper computer (like ENIAC) featured in any of the programs in that set doesn't mean Walt wasn't interested in them. Or do you believe that they would be using an abacus to calculate how a rocket is launched in "Man in Space"? Or maybe just a lot of pencil and paper to figure out trajectory and speed in a program like "Mars and Beyond".



albert

Super Aurora wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

Says you. Disney can make whatever the f&%k they feel like.

Dude, watch your language please.

Wonderlicious wrote:

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise. You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

I don't wanna be cheeky, but how do you know we all have the feeling it's "un-Disney"? Can you claim to read our minds? Just because you may not like the idea, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily "un-Disney" in our eyes. As for the point of comparison, let's look at it this way. Computers were, generally speaking, the realm of scientists, so they wouldn't have fit into most films, Disney or none. Video-games are, however, commonplace in homes around the globe, just as how computers are. Complaining about that sort of thing appearing in any Disney film would in principal be like slamming 101 Dalmatians for including scenes where the characters watch TV or Saludos Amigos for including a segment featuring planes. Does everything have to take place "once upon a time in a land far away"?

One of the things that has always been embraced by animators, and perhaps the only reason why it has lasted and will continue to do so, is the idea of exploring the impossible and unreachable. With just a click of a few pixels, art tools or lumps of clay, the impossible becomes plausible. Entering the world of video games should just be as valid a thing to do in animation as watching a pumpkin getting turned into a coach, seeing the world from a dog's view, or watching toys, household objects and vehicles come to life. As I've said, I personally think that, based on its overall premise and what we know already, Joe Jump/Reboot Ralph would work better as a featurette (something around the 20-30 minute mark). But something that the big Walty D would disapprove of? Well, I should be going to a seance next Thursday, so I'll ask him then. Then we'll know.

I don't think something has to be set in "A land, far, far away" or "Once Upon a Time" to be Disney, but there is a feel to what is and is not Disney.

Example? I personally feel "Tangled" isn't very Disney and it's set in a fairy tale setting. The whole time I've watch both trailers, I kept thinking it was a Dreamworks film.

As for "Joe Jump" or whatever title it goes by, time will tell how "Disney" it is. But I for one don't think becuase it's about a video game that it's not Disney necessarily or that Walt would not like it. There was clearly a futuristic part to the man.

milojthatch wrote:
Dude, watch your language please.

That's just how I am.

milojthatch wrote:I don't think something has to be set in "A land, far, far away" or "Once Upon a Time" to be Disney, but there is a feel to what is and is not Disney.

That's not the point Wondy making. Basically he's saying Disney shouldn't always cater to usual standard Disney formula. The fairytale ones happen be best prime example of that.

An animated film from Disney about videogames is not undisney.

Nothing is undisney.

It's a non-existant word, with a non-existant meaning.

-----

Though for the sake of arguing. Going by this logic, everything made after 1966 is undisney, since the company was originally made out of the viewpoint of Walt Disney himself. Unless - of course - someone here can speak to dead people. I'm pretty sure though that this is not the case, so... the only logical conclusion would be that nobody has the right to call something undisney. Simply because there is no way to actually find out what the man himself would have done with future technology, scripts, ideas, etc.

The more you know! *shooting star*

Super Aurora wrote:

milojthatch wrote:
Dude, watch your language please.

That's just how I am.

I don't care, this is how I am. KNOCK IT OFF! This is a Disney Forum, such language like that shouldn't be tolerated. Some of us don't like such words, pleases how some respect. I don't think that is too much to ask for. Thanks.

Some points of order before I return to the *actual* topic at hand...


@ milojthatch: You're free to ignore Super Aurora's posts if you want. Unless a member insults a fellow member, I think we should all be free to express ourselves the way we want.

ajmrowland wrote:As an autistic, I find *my* rage more often than not has a point to it. [...] And then again, Goliath doesnt only voice, but parades his opinions around here. And then again, a lot of us do.

Yes, I know Super Aurora probably didn't mean it that way, but I still object to that statement. Let's not disqualify people because of who they are. And yes, whenever people react overly dramatic, I *enjoy* parading my opinions. If a person just disagrees, I don't go that far, but I just love to tease people of whom I know they will over-react.

abenotgabe wrote:@ Goliath, I've been a long time lurker on this forum and I always enjoy your posts, In fact I tend to agree with your thoughts more than half of the time.

I personally prefer discussions like this one versus color palettes on BatB or what special features Fantasia is missing. This keeps the forum interesting for me. Lets just "agree to disagree".

Why, thank you, and I agree with you. (Though I, too, would want to see BatB in the 'right' colors!)

Wonderlicious wrote:I don't wanna be cheeky, but how do you know we all have the feeling it's "un-Disney"? Can you claim to read our minds?

Well, he can read Walt's, and he's been dead for over 40 years...

I applaud the rest of your post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

What Duster keeps forgetting, is that Walt Disney was an innovator. Duster always reminds us that he did fairy tales and traditional animation. Yes, but that was a very small part of what he did. Disney always searched for the newest things: the first cartoon with synchronised sound; the first color cartoon; the first (American) feature-lenght cartoon etc. He was busy with things like Epcot. I think that, had Disney been alive in the 1990's, *he* would have been the first one to come out with a CGI-animated movie, instead of Pixar. (At least, I borrowed that thought from Joe Grant, who was convinced of it.)

milojthatch wrote: I don't care, this is how I am. KNOCK IT OFF! This is a Disney Forum, such language like that shouldn't be tolerated. Some of us don't like such words, pleases how some respect. I don't think that is too much to ask for. Thanks.

Super Aurora wrote:

milojthatch wrote:I don't think something has to be set in "A land, far, far away" or "Once Upon a Time" to be Disney, but there is a feel to what is and is not Disney.

That's not the point Wondy making. Basically he's saying Disney shouldn't always cater to usual standard Disney formula. The fairytale ones happen be best prime example of that.

Exactly. As others have stated, though Walt may have been interested by fantasy and fairy tales, he was probably more fascinated by other genres, especially in later years, including (gasp!) science fiction. After Sleeping Beauty, he practically admitted to being fed up of the whole genre, and he was fascinated by modern technology and progress. Of course, I forgot to mention the Tomorrowland episodes (thanks for reminding me Scaps). Or basically the whole of Disneyland anyway.

Of course, we'll still have people claim Lilo and Stitch isn't a Disney film as it's basically a sci-fi film, and, despite the lush watercolour look and the expected good character animation, the whole design is too much in Sanders' style (when in all fairness they still have a sorta Disney look anyway). Oh well...

Wonderlicious wrote: On a tangent, I'd always wanted Disney to do anarchic Mario Kart style games (racing, tennis, soccer, mini games etc) featuring an ensemble of well-known Disney characters (the main characters from the Mickey Mouse universe, plus a few characters from the features), with themed sets based on Disney films and shorts. Of course, we did get this, but it supposedly only featured three renowned characters (Chip, Dale and Jiminy Cricket), and was generally a little lame and sterile according to a lot of gaming magazines that I used to read back in the day.

I would've loved to try my hands at that Snow White game in the Mickey Mouse short "Runaway Brain"

As far as 2D animation is concerned I don't think the medium is dead. Hell, some people are still insisting on making stop-motion films although a cgi movie would look similar to most audiences. I personally love the more sculpural, organic look of a stop-motion movie than a glossed over cgi flick, but I am not sure most people would appreciate the extra effort of stop-motion. That said, what I love is that 3D, 2D and stop-motion (which deserves the term '3D' more than cgi, let's be honest) are different mediums that do different stuff, and I see no reason for them to imitate each other (although it is always good to inspire each other)

I do think that Disney needs to start to tackle some more controversial, thought-provoking ideas. Princess and the Frog was entertaining enough, but the themes are tackled in such a usual and predictable way that they are hardly thought-provoking to most people who manage to think for themselves.

I would just love to see Disney dig deeper, be more philosofical and unpredictable, mor daring and dark. People love Studio Ghibli films, and many of those films can't actually claim to be fast-paced (Only Yesterday is such an unlikely story for an animated movie in the western world)

I think one of the successes of Ghibli artistically is that they are true to themselves in their marketing. They don't say 'this is faced paced' or 'this is slow' but people just need to see it for themselves. They might not like it or they might not know what to think, but at least it is interesting. Obviously Ghibli uses another sets of conventions and is hardly as original to Japan audiences.

The problem with the animation medium in the US I think is that it such a precious process that an ordinary, real-life story doesn't seem worthy of the bright colours and glossed-over surfaces. Lost In Translation is one of my favourite films not because it is so full of plot-twists (it isn't) but because it has a rich atmosphere, a touch with reality and deals with the traditional Hollywood love story in an unusual way.

If Disney could relax a bit more and not insist that it's always necessary with a big epic story where everything is ten times bigger than real life.

Why does an animated film need to follow a predefined plot rule? As I said on this forum several years ago, I still feel that the problem is that the US (and to some extent Europe) treats an animation as genre. You've got drama, comedy, action and you've got animated movies. Animated films are not a genre, it is a medium. Animated films should explore all those genres generally reserved for live-action films. I think it is safe to say that 90% of animated films produced in the US the last decade could easily fit into the 'family comedy' genre even if some of them contain brief momets of drama (which live-action comedies often does as well). For this reason I don't think the industry deserve its own Academy Award category. There just isn't enough diversity contents-wise (I feel there are less to complain about the actual animation, even if the studios tend to copy the Disney characte's trademark white smiles) compared to the live-action scene.

(And sorry for my inconsistent use of 'movies' and 'films' - I just can't decide which to use)

DisneyJedi wrote:

Goliath wrote: I talk down to the movie; not the people. And the movie richly deserves it.

No, it does not. And you know what? I've had it with you and your talk, acting like your opinions are fact. News flash: You can't MAKE your opinions FACT!!

Aren't you doing exactly the thing you are criticizin Goliath of doing? If not, how come you didn't say "No, it does not deserve it in my opinion"?

I'd like to assume that most of the members here choose to spend time here not because they don't have anything else to do in their life than talkng down to people, but because they genuinely care about movies and animaton. I could be wrong of course. That said, if you're really passionate about something then you tend to want to leave some of that hysterical, over-protective politeness out of the sentence and just get to the point. I think that we should try to treat each other with respect, but don't we all have different ways of expressing outselves? Instead of being insulted because someone else is speaking to you in a different tone than you or with a different choice of words, maybe you could try to focus on what they're actually saying.

Maybe they speak the way they speak because it's they way they are and not because they don't care about your opinon or are out to get you. And if you can't convince them to agree with you so what? Do we need to convince everybody?

I really didn't plan to spend an entire post talking about this, but I wish we could just move on and try to stick to the topic.

A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise. You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

To anyone saying against this, Walt never made films about things that weren't of flesh and blood. Or puppets that wanted to be. Walt made things about organic real life.

I laugh at you comparing watching TV to making an animated film about a video game. He didn't make an animated feature that took place in TV. Even then, at least TV is real people, filmed, or animated characters. It's not virtual life.

I laugh at your bringing the use of computers to assist animated films. See above.

And I said animated features not live-action stuff.

And in TRON it is REAL PEOPLE going into video games.

Disney was about REAL EMOTION. NOT FAKE EMOTION. NOT FAKE VIRTUAL LIFE. That's why he'd also be against a movie about robots. His animatronics were mean to imitate real life, just like animation. He would never make a film saying fake life like that is the same as human life or should be taken seriously and felt for like they are real.

Nothing any of you say will change my feeling on this or the same feelings have about it that you ignore or the fact it is true.

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise. You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

To anyone saying against this, Walt never made films about things that weren't of flesh and blood. Or puppets that wanted to be. Walt made things about organic real life.

I laugh at you comparing watching TV to making an animated film about a video game. He didn't make an animated feature that took place in TV. Even then, at least TV is real people, filmed, or animated characters. It's not virtual life.

I laugh at your bringing the use of computers to assist animated films. See above.

And I said animated features not live-action stuff.

And in TRON it is REAL PEOPLE going into video games.

Disney was about REAL EMOTION. NOT FAKE EMOTION. NOT FAKE VIRTUAL LIFE. That's why he'd also be against a movie about robots. His animatronics were mean to imitate real life, just like animation. He would never make a film saying fake life like that is the same as human life or should be taken seriously and felt for like they are real.

Nothing any of you say will change my feeling on this or the same feelings have about it that you ignore or the fact it is true.

In short, you have no argument to make to back up your claim.

"Virtual reality" or "virtual life" or whatever you want to call it didn't exist in the same way in Walt's time as it does now. Computers and virtual concepts of all types are more important and involved within our daily lives than ever, and will only become more so with the passage of time. Playing a character in a video game is no more or less "fake" than identifying with any fictional character, whether it be film, television, live-action, or animation. Well, that's my opinion anyway, and while I'm at it we can throw robots into the mix along with inanimate objects like talking doorknobs. I definitely don't have the feeling that any of these discussed concepts are un-Disney and don't feel anyone should speak on my behalf over what my opinions are assumed to be. At the same time, I won't be dictating what anyone else's opinions supposedly "should" be.

I wish this forum could be a drama free zone...who the hell has the energy to argue with complete strangers over this trivial bs. Every thread on this forum turns into this back and forth between several members and it is exhausting. Does anybody get anything out of it?Does it make anyone feel better about themselves? Why can't anyone just let it go? Sometimes the best thing to do is just walk away (click away)! All I'm saying is give peace a chance and be the bigger person! Fake it 'til you make it!

Since we're playing "let's repeat ourselves instead of actually explaining anything beyond hyperbolic statements"...

Disney Duster wrote:A Disney animated feature about video games is un-Disney.

None of you will convince me otherwise.

I don't think anyone wants to try. It's easier to let you live in your own little world where you're Walt's personal ambassador from the great beyond.

Disney Duster wrote:You all have the feeling it is un-Disney as well, but you're just ignoring it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but you don't know what I feel. You do not have telepathic powers, you cannot peer into my brain and know what my thoughts and feelings are at any given moment on any given subject. How DARE you presume to think you can.

Disney Duster wrote:Walt Disney may not have been around when video games were, but computers were around in his time and he didn't make animated features about those.

Rent "Walt Disney Treasures: Walt's Tomorrowland". The guy was interested in much more than drawing fairy tales, you know. If you strived to learn more about him beyond animated features, you'd know that. Just because there's no proper computer (like ENIAC) featured in any of the programs in that set doesn't mean Walt wasn't interested in them. Or do you believe that they would be using an abacus to calculate how a rocket is launched in "Man in Space"? Or maybe just a lot of pencil and paper to figure out trajectory and speed in a program like "Mars and Beyond".

Disney Duster wrote:To anyone saying against this, Walt never made films about things that weren't of flesh and blood. Or puppets that wanted to be. Walt made things about organic real life.

No, he didn't make an animated feature about a computer or a robot or whatever. That doesn't mean he never would have. You don't know that, I don't know that, nobody knows that. He died in 1966. Any conjecture and speculation of how he would have acted AFTER HIS DEATH is baseless because he is not there to say "Yes, I would have done that" or "No, I wouldn't have done that".

Anyone who dares to think they KNOW what Walt would do suffers delusions of grandeur and overestimates their own minimal knowledge of a man who did a great many things.

Disney Duster wrote:I laugh at you comparing watching TV to making an animated film about a video game.

I shake my head in shame at someone who dares to call himself a Disney fan and simply brushes off his contributions in mediums that weren't projected on a silver screen with stories that weren't at one point or another adapted by Brothers Grimm.

Whether it be for theatre or television, Walt was interested in more than just fairy tales. Take your head out of the sand for a minute and learn more about the guy beyond his work on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty. You might learn a thing or two.

Disney Duster wrote:And I said animated features not live-action stuff.

And Walt did live-action stuff, not just animated features.

It's pointless arguing with you about ANYTHING Walt-related because you only stick to one argument ("OMG, animation is teh best!!!!111") and one aspect of that argument ("OMG, fairy tales 4eva!!!!111"). Any valid point brought up that conflicts with that ("Walt was interested in live-action filmmaking", "Walt worked on educational programs on television", etc.) immediately gets shut down with "Well, that's not fairy tale, I won't pay attention to it, it's not worth me arguing about." You are so one-track and narrow-minded in what your conception of Disney is. You turn the idea of "Disney" into what you want it to be, not what it was, what it is, and what it has the potential to be. You're not a Disney fan. You're a fan of your own ego and ideas, and you attribute those ideas only to some of what "Disney" is in an attempt to make others believe that is what Disney is.

See? I can play the "hyperbolic claims about Disney and their fans" game too.

Disney Duster wrote:That's why he'd also be against a movie about robots...He would never make a film saying fake life like that is the same as human life or should be taken seriously and felt for like they are real.

Next time you call up Walt on the Psychic Friends Network, ask him when he's next available for me to interview him. I've got loads of follow-up questions I wouldn't mind asking.

Disney Duster wrote:Nothing any of you say will change my feeling on this or the same feelings have about it that you ignore or the fact it is true.

I'm suddenly reminded of something that Buzz Lightyear (oh dear, someone who doesn't have real human emotions because he's just a toy...and a CGI one too!) once said: "You are a sad and strange little man. And you have my pity."

Sunny Wing wrote:Well, that's my opinion anyway, and while I'm at it we can throw robots into the mix along with inanimate objects like talking doorknobs.

And for good measure, plasticine dogs. Add a little non-Disney variety!

Sunny Wing wrote:I definitely don't have the feeling that any of these discussed concepts are un-Disney and don't feel anyone should speak on my behalf over what my opinions are assumed to be.

Wait until you're dead, Sunny. Then someone will claim to know exactly what your opinions are assumed to be, because you're not there to say otherwise. Plus, they've watched three of your movies millions of times while summarily dismissing most anything else that you did.

Sunny Wing wrote:At the same time, I won't be dictating what anyone else's opinions supposedly "should" be.

Word. Pass me the milk buds, luvvy.

MutantEnemy wrote:I wish this forum could be a drama free zone

But that's boring.

MutantEnemy wrote:Does anybody get anything out of it?

Actually, I've got a running bet with Don Hahn on how long the color warriors will continue their complaints before they collectively give up and just accept whatever the filmmakers give them. So if they keep arguing for another ten years, three months, and eleven days, I get $3000. (And if any of you actually believe that, you need serious help.)

MutantEnemy wrote:Does it make anyone feel better about themselves?

I'll feel better when I get my $3000.

MutantEnemy wrote:Why can't anyone just let it go?

I don't start fights, but I sure as hell don't mind finishing them. I think that's the lure of not letting go and wanting to have that last word. But sometimes, yes, it is easier to just walk away and let the other side keep on trying to fight the good fight.

albert