Disney's rumored next 2d animated film *here we go again*

[Goliath]

Oh, I meant that I think it means Disney today is limiting itself to fairy tale-like things too much instead of looking at the other things Walt did in his animated films in his lifetime. The mere name, King (royalty) of the Elves (fairy tale creatures) already signifies what I mean.

You were arguing THE EXACT OPPOSITE of this when 'Reboot Ralph' started to get discussed on UD. You have always insisted that 'fairytales' are the heart and core of Disney; and that they should continue making fairytales, because Walt's most important movies were fairytales. Anyone else remembers that? How Duster went on and on and on about how important it was for Disney to continue making fairytales?

I have to ask, why are you so negative and dismissive of everything Disney have recently done or are planning to do? Lilo & Stitch, Princess and the Frog and Tangled were all "un-Disney", on another thread you've done nothing but complain about the Fantasyland expansion at WDW and you've said that you don't agree with Disney making Reboot Ralph, King of the Elves and Mort. Now, Mickey Mouse isn't "Disney"?

Also, you must have missed when I loved, LOVED the WDW Fantasyland expansion, until they changed it, then I became sad and mad!

Which confirms what I've been saying all along: everything that doesn't hold nostalgia for you, is considered "un-Disney". It's not a sin to only love Disney-related stuff from your childhood. You can freely admit it. We won't ban you from the forum; we won't treat you like an outcast. Lazario has freely admitted he doesn't like any Disney-movie made after 1990. It's no big deal. You don't have to pretend your dislike for anything NEW from Disney has any merit and can be reasoned.

[DisneyAnimation88]

I'm just saying that with all Walt's past examples, with only those things to go on to figure out what he would want, it seems to point to him not wanting Mickey over-exposed in a full feature, and especially not as himself, because even for Mickey and the Beanstalk he would have played a role, a character.

No it doesn't. Find any credible proof, one tiny scrap of evidence that Walt Disney would never have put Mickey Mouse in full-length feature, not "he didn't write it down or didn't want Mickey overexposed" because there is no evidence to back that up.

The fact that he started Mickey and the Beanstalk as a feature film, but didn't think he could make it complete...I simply don't get that, because there's other animation in the film that makes up the other half.

The reason for that is halfway through production, the army announced they were taking over half of the Disney studio, hence the package features. Bongo, the other film in Fun and Fancy Free was also planned as a full-length feature as were the Wind in the Willows and the Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

However, Walt mentioned all of those projects, which gives a little more credibility to them being okay.

Can I ask where did he mention them? I know they were planned and I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely curious if you know of a quote from Disney concerning those two films.

[Semaj]

That's a really good argument, I can admit. However, Walt mentioned all of those projects, which gives a little more credibility to them being okay. The fact that he started Mickey and the Beanstalk as a feature film, but didn't think he could make it complete...I simply don't get that, because there's other animation in the film that makes up the other half. I don't quite understand how that one couldn't have been made, and there is the possibility Walt really did change his mind on having Mickey in full-length.

There was a major revival campaign planned between 1939 and 1941. Mickey was redesigned with new eyes, and for a period, ears that followed perspective, plus a noticeably more aggressive personality (like in "Symphony Hour").

I don't know the entire history behind Mickey's filmography, but even during Walt's lifetime, there were circumstances that were stronger than Walt himself. From what I do know, there was a union strike in 1941 that put production on Dumbo on the rocks. The final film only enjoyed a brief success before the US entered WWII. Those reasons plus the company losing money from the underperformances of Pinocchio, Fantasia, and later Bambi all affected the creative environment and output at Walt Disney Productions.

Somehow, Mickey fell out of the loop, and his series was put on hold between 1943 and 1946. When he returned, he went back to his 1939 redesign, and no longer had that brief "edge" from 1941. The mouse who broke the rules in "Mr. Mouse Takes a Trip" would now follow them without question in future shorts like "Plutopia".

Also, Walt probably didn't write a lot of things down because he trusted his company to follow in what he would want them to do. Towards the end of his life he let them make features on their own, and they were still based on classic books or had talking animals or magic.

I'm guessing the issue never came up with studio operatives because, for the first 18 years after Walt died, the company wasn't trained to function without its founding father.

Nor did the issue come up with feature film development, because writing a concrete list of Disney "do's" and "don'ts" could've severely stifled the creative flexibility that's so important to filmmaking, especially for animation.

Still, the best way anything is accomplished in the modern world, especially in the fickle motion picture business is to write things down. Otherwise, stuff like your Disney Doctrine is left to endless interpretation.

I'm just saying that with all Walt's past examples, with only those things to go on to figure out what he would want, it seems to point to him not wanting Mickey over-exposed in a full feature, and especially not as himself, because even for Mickey and the Beanstalk he would have played a role, a character.

Again, there were some peripheral elements beyond Walt's control. Walt gave up the voice of Mickey, partially because of his increasing workload, and partially because his smoking started to affect his voice. (Ultimately, smoking would kill him 20 years later.) But that didn't stop the character from surviving thru a replacement voice artist (James MacDonald).

I don't think over-exposure was the concern for making a Mickey movie, since the idea was to make him a prominent character again. Donald Duck, Goofy, and Pluto all starred in more cartoons throughout the 1940's than Mickey did, and were all getting more interesting roles as a result. Mickey was the only one among them whose series went on hiatus and was later folded into another. Sort of the opposite of how Donald, Goofy, and Pluto grew out of being his sidekicks and branched off into their own series.

If anything, Mickey was already suffering from under-exposure.

[Wonderlicious]

Surely you know I knew the word literary. I purposely chose to use the word "literature". I like to break common rules, be they grammar or what. Only a bunch of people with their own opinions make up rules. If I see no need for them, then I write what I would like to write. However, if you tell me the word "literary' was the only proper way to write that sentence, that's good to know in case I must be formal to certain people.

On language:
I don't mean to get off topic, but the reason these language rules exist, in both spoken and written form, is to form a set means of common understanding between one another. Otherwise, people would create their own dialects and distinct languages and nobody would be able to understand one another. On a forum where one communicates through writing, it's especially a good idea to follow language rules instead of foolishly inventing one's own. As a more extreme example:

"The cat has cette semaine in the barn beaucoup de mice chased."

Did this feel perplexing? This sentence uses standard German word order, which can be different to that of English word order, as well as various bits of French vocabulary. I could choose to write like this, but would most people understand it? I think not. Obviously, this is a very extreme example, but the point is the same; constrictive as it may seem, language rules need to be kept in public situations, including the Internet. You can write or talk however you want on your own or perhaps with friends and family. Yet the Internet is a public space, and it's not constructive to go confusing people, whether intentionally or by accident.

On "only a bunch of people with opinions make up their own rules":
Well, you're the one making up the whole Disney Essence rules that you're saying everybody should believe in no matter what. So there you go!

[Disney Duster]

Did this movie turn out to be that Mousekopolis or Mouse City or whatever? There was a Mouse-something that was announced, wasn't there?

Surely you know I knew the word literary. I purposely chose to use the word "literature". I like to break common rules, be they grammar or what. Only a bunch of people with their own opinions make up rules. If I see no need for them, then I write what I would like to write. However, if you tell me the word "literary' was the only proper way to write that sentence, that's good to know in case I must be formal to certain people.

<center></center>

Why did you post this all that time ago? And try not to make fun when you tell me...

Oh, I meant that I think it means Disney today is limiting itself to fairy tale-like things too much instead of looking at the other things Walt did in his animated films in his lifetime. The mere name, King (royalty) of the Elves (fairy tale creatures) already signifies what I mean.

You were arguing THE EXACT OPPOSITE of this when 'Reboot Ralph' started to get discussed on UD. You have always insisted that 'fairytales' are the heart and core of Disney; and that they should continue making fairytales, because Walt's most important movies were fairytales. Anyone else remembers that? How Duster went on and on and on about how important it was for Disney to continue making fairytales?

No. I said that fairy tales are a part of the Disney essence. They fit in with the "fantasy and classic stories" parts of it. Even Glen Keane has said Disney needs to keep doing fairy tales. But though they should, it shouldn't be like ten fairy tales in a row like it seems they're aiming for. I don't want just fairy tales. I want the Disney essence, which means finding what makes films Disney other than just fairy tales.

Also, you must have missed when I loved, LOVED the WDW Fantasyland expansion, until they changed it, then I became sad and mad!

Which confirms what I've been saying all along: everything that doesn't hold nostalgia for you, is considered "un-Disney". It's not a sin to only love Disney-related stuff from your childhood. You can freely admit it. We won't ban you from the forum; we won't treat you like an outcast. Lazario has freely admitted he doesn't like any Disney-movie made after 1990. It's no big deal. You don't have to pretend your dislike for anything NEW from Disney has any merit and can be reasoned.[/quote]
I don't understand how what I said before translates into that. When I grew up the 90's, Disney did things that were still very much what Walt did. Talking animals, magic, fairy tales, royalty, classic books, myths and legends. It is only since around The Home on the Range (to Dreamworks goofy), aliens, Chicken Little, CGI Tangled twisted fairy tale stuff that I now think they are being un-Disney. I got excited for Rapunzel, then it turned to the un-Disney Tangled. I got excited for the fantasyland expansion, then they changed that. I may indeed find myself hating most of what Disney does from now on, because most people their, especially the heads in charge, don't see to care about a Disney essence now, just like Bob Iger said they don't have to care about Walt Disney anymore.

However, Walt mentioned all of those projects, which gives a little more credibility to them being okay.

Can I ask where did he mention them? I know they were planned and I'm not being confrontational, I'm genuinely curious if you know of a quote from Disney concerning those two films.

No, I was referring to the fact they were in production so Walt already approved those. None of those were a full-on Mickey movie like Disney may now be planning, none of them are quite the same as that.

Still, the best way anything is accomplished in the modern world, especially in the fickle motion picture business is to write things down. Otherwise, stuff like your Disney Doctrine is left to endless interpretation.

Yes, but as I was saying, he probably didn't right things down because he didn't feel he had to. He probably trusted those he trained to continue the Disney essence as they continued the Disney studio.

I'm just saying that with all Walt's past examples, with only those things to go on to figure out what he would want, it seems to point to him not wanting Mickey over-exposed in a full feature, and especially not as himself, because even for Mickey and the Beanstalk he would have played a role, a character.

I don't think over-exposure was the concern for making a Mickey movie, since the idea was to make him a prominent character again.

I didn't mean over-exposure in general, I meant that a full-length film of Mickey was putting him something beyond his realm he was meant for, that of short subjects. There's having a lot of shorts, and then there's making a full-length feature. You know, that is not the best way of explaining it. I mean that Mickey was meant for shorts, too special to be in a full-length film like he was any other Disney film character.

Wonderlicious, yes, your example was a bit extreme. It did serve a good deal, and you right about so much of what you said...

But it still stands that what I said was not going to confuse a lick of people on this forum, which is why I thought it was alright, my good man! And why I also said it was good to know what you told me for way more formal people who might criticize me for such a thing even though they would be able to understand it, too...

On "only a bunch of people with opinions make up their own rules":
Well, you're the one making up the whole Disney Essence rules that you're saying everybody should believe in no matter what. So there you go!

I am guessing you were being sarcastic, because I am not making up rules. I am trying to figure out what the rules are. Things are very obvious to even some of you, like that Tangled should've kept it's traditional name because Walt's films always had more traditional names kept closer to the original names. Past Disney films have always had elements of fantasy, even just talking animals, so fantasy is another rule. You see, anyone can see these rules. I am someone trying to find them all!

[UmbrellaFish]

Did this movie turn out to be that Mousekopolis or Mouse City or whatever? There was a Mouse-something that was announced, wasn't there?

Ahem, I believe you're referring to Mousketworld. And it wasn't real, it was just an April Fools' Day joke.

[Super Aurora]

<center></center>

Why did you post this all that time ago? And try not to make fun when you tell me...

look at the bold text. I was laughing at that cause you really do do that. You may not think it it but from way your write out your responses, they come out just like the bold text.

[disneyboy20022]

This thread has been revived and brought to you by Disney Essence, If your essence isn't Disney, then you don't have any real Essence

[DisneyAnimation88]

I may indeed find myself hating most of what Disney does from now on, because most people their, especially the heads in charge, don't see to care about a Disney essence now, just like Bob Iger said they don't have to care about Walt Disney anymore.

Hold on, when did Bob Iger say that the company doesn't have to care about Walt Disney anymore? I've searched online for a quote or something but I can't find anything.

Yes, but as I was saying, he probably didn't right things down because he didn't feel he had to. He probably trusted those he trained to continue the Disney essence as they continued the Disney studio

So you mean like the Nine Old Men, the likes of Eric Larson, Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston who taught many animation students at CalArts, including John Lasseter who is now in charge of Disney animation. So, by that logic, the man in charge of Disney animation has the essence, right?

I didn't mean over-exposure in general, I meant that a full-length film of Mickey was putting him something beyond his realm he was meant for, that of short subjects. There's having a lot of shorts, and then there's making a full-length feature. You know, that is not the best way of explaining it. I mean that Mickey was meant for shorts, too special to be in a full-length film like he was any other Disney film character.

Look, if they can come up with an entertaining film that Mickey can star in there's really no issue. Do you think that Walt would want perhaps his most beloved creation to become a relic that isn't seen on-screen anymore? Walt Disney never explicitly said that Mickey shouldn't star in a full-length film so you're just making a huge assumption here.

[Goliath]

Duster, you really think I'm gonna bother with all that after all these months? Any interest I ever had in discussing with you has faded. I stand by what I said: you only like Disney for nostalgic reasons. Everybody here knows that. You're the only one still denying it. But fact is: if Snow White would come out today and look exactly the same as Walt's film, you would hate it, just because it wasn't part of your childhood.

Now just admit it and we can all move on with our pathetic internet-lives.

[Rose Dome]

I can't wait for this!

Not only is it 2D (hopefully), but it will also include Mickey, Donald, and Goofy. It's far time they were seen on the screen again

[Sotiris]

^This was only a pitch. We don't know whether it has been greenlit for further development or not. Don't get your hopes too up.

[Rose Dome]

^ ^ ^

I guess I sounded a bit too certain, but still, it would be wonderful if this film were to happen

[The_Iceflash]

I can't wait for this!

Not only is it 2D (hopefully), but it will also include Mickey, Donald, and Goofy. It's far time they were seen on the screen again

Mickey, Donald, and Goofy are WAY overdue on the big screen again. They're been reduced to pre-school-only characters and need to come back!

[disneyprincess11]

I can't wait for this!

Not only is it 2D (hopefully), but it will also include Mickey, Donald, and Goofy. It's far time they were seen on the screen again

Mickey, Donald, and Goofy are WAY overdue on the big screen again. They're been reduced to pre-school-only characters and need to come back!

^^This

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it'll be 2D. And hopefully a certain "lucky rabbit" will make his first debut in a Disney movie ever.

[Dr Frankenollie]

I hope that this will be influenced a lot by the excellent Epic Mickey, which was nostalgic but also dark and original. Also, as the poster above me said, hopefully Oswald will make an appearance. I wonder what his voice sounds like...

[toonaspie]

If Mickey n Friends ever get their own fully animated film for the canon it should be an original story and not an adaptation of a classic tale of what not like they've done with "Prince and the Pauper" and "The Three Musketeers". This kind of thing was what wore out The Muppets back in the 1990s/early 2000s.

Personally I think they should stay away from animated features. Perhaps Disney should go back to doing Mickey n Friends shorts and make it a new tradition to premier a new Mickey short with every new animated feature they do. A mix of the old with the new.

[Disney Duster]

toonaspie, I agree with what you said, I like your opinions on here a lot. I like how they are usually very in accordance with the things Disney used to always do since Disney's beginning, to be Disney.

look at the bold text. I was laughing at that cause you really do do that. You may not think it it but from way your write out your responses, they come out just like the bold text.

I know I say people don't understand me a lot, but this time I don't understand you. You mean that you laughed because I do that a lot, as in I break the common rules a lot?

Hold on, when did Bob Iger say that the company doesn't have to care about Walt Disney anymore? I've searched online for a quote or something but I can't find anything.

Since the search function's half-working, I can't find the quote either, but he said that the company couldn't think about Walt's ideas for the company anymore if they were to "move on" or something like that. That's not the exact quote so it's probably not as terrible as that sounds but it's a quote where you can tell he doesn't care enough about Walt Disney and will basically let Disney become a totally different un-Disney company that only their re-releases of old Disney films will feel Disney at all...

So you mean like the Nine Old Men, the likes of Eric Larson, Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston who taught many animation students at CalArts, including John Lasseter who is now in charge of Disney animation. So, by that logic, the man in charge of Disney animation has the essence, right?

If only, man, if only! No, what it means it means is that these guys were trained with some good Disney essence animation skills and stuff, but yet, it is up to the guys themselves to actually think about and use the Disney essence to make Disney things. Since Lasseter took his lessons and made...a whole new company called Pixar that is a whole different un-Disney thing, you see what the problem is not solved by training people. As I said, Walt merely trusted the Disney essence would go on, probably never thinking things would get so...tangled...

Look, if they can come up with an entertaining film that Mickey can star in there's really no issue. Do you think that Walt would want perhaps his most beloved creation to become a relic that isn't seen on-screen anymore? Walt Disney never explicitly said that Mickey shouldn't star in a full-length film so you're just making a huge assumption here.

But Mickey will not be a relic just because he's not in a feature length film, just as he has never, ever been in a full film (full film not a package film) since the days of Walt Disney, and despite that he's still ever popular! And putting him in one movie would not keep him from being a relic, either! They could forget him after that one movie. He needs to constantly be in something...whether it's re-releases and re-airings of his old wonderful shorts, or some new shorts every few years.

Goliath, your unwillingness to actually read and take in what I explained with very good and true reasons shows your unwillingness to admit what you don't want to, that maybe I'm right and it's not just nostalgia. It can be yours and a lot of other people's opinions that it is nostalgia, but none of you can actually be inside my head and know that I know it's truly not nostalgia. All your speculating that it's nostalgia will always be just your opinions, and you can certainly have your opinion, but I shall always know that it's not what you think.

To make you feel better I will admit that there are sometimes when I think maybe nostalgia is at work, but not for what I say here and not for everything I say like you greatly exaggerated.

[Super Aurora]

look at the bold text. I was laughing at that cause you really do do that. You may not think it it but from way your write out your responses, they come out just like the bold text.

I know I say people don't understand me a lot, but this time I don't understand you. You mean that you laughed because I do that a lot, as in I break the common rules a lot?

No i laugh at the fact that it was quite ironic of you to say that. You criticized others for doing that as if giving the impression you don't do this, and yet you do this all the time yourself when you argue with us in debates.

[DisneyAnimation88]

No, what it means it means is that these guys were trained with some good Disney essence animation skills and stuff, but yet, it is up to the guys themselves to actually think about and use the Disney essence to make Disney things. Since Lasseter took his lessons and made...a whole new company called Pixar that is a whole different un-Disney thing, you see what the problem is not solved by training people.

No I don't see. They were not trained in "essence animation", they were taught animation by some of the best animators to ever walk this earth. What you say about John Lasseter is rubbish; the reason he went to Pixar was because Disney were too short-sighted and cheap to recognise his talent and ideas in the 1980's. People who worked with Walt have no problem working with Lasseter and Pixar so I fail to see how he is "un-Disney".

He needs to constantly be in something...whether it's re-releases and re-airings of his old wonderful shorts, or some new shorts every few years.

So he can only be shown in re-airings of his old appearances and occasional appearances in new shorts? To me, that's more or less a relic. Mickey needs to be revitalised, not as a mainstay in pre-school television but in imaginative and energetic films and shorts like those in which he became famous.