DVDizzy Forum

thanks, but it was DisInsider after all

ah, so *Columbia? that does make more sense. I wonder if Shakira will get a role...


*off to Google about Columbian mythology/folklore

Idunno, Encanto sounds like a Pixar title to me

UmbrellaFish wrote:Lol I thought DisInsider might get the title wrong, but the whole country???

I feel sorry for any Brazilian people who got excited about a Disney film set in their country.

The replies to DisInsider's Tweet correcting their mistake consist of nothing but disappointed Brazilians. I feel really bad for the Brazilians who got all excited at this news, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. DisInsider is never going to live this down.

Why would anyone be that upset a website got the country setting for a film that won’t be released for three years wrong? That was the first info anyone had heard about it at all, so… I don’t even know the setting of most of Disney's past films.

Personally, I wish the disappointing synopsis had been wrong as well.

People like to see movies about their home and their culture and Disney movies are especially cherished. As an Appalachian, I’m always sad we never saw A Few Good Ghosts/My Peoples.

Yeah, but it's not enough for dragging a source that was dubious in the first place. We always know to take gossip sources with a grain of salt. That's kind of the point, they are not official. Haven't they been upfront about that?

Sotiris wrote:

farerb wrote:When we get CGI with no music like Pixar-esque Ralph or Marvel-esque Big Hero 6 or Sandra Bullock-esque Zootopia, I feel like asking what's the point? That's what Pixar is for, making these sort of movies and all I want is for Disney to make the movies that really relates to what identify them - music and fantastical elements rooted in fairytales or mythology or literature.

Hi farerb and Sotiris. This a late reply, but I only just saw the quoted post.

I must say I disagree wholeheartedly with this. One of the things that I always feel keeps Disney animation back is this expectation by Disney fans of what types of films the studio should make. In my humble opinion a film from Walt Disney Animation Studios can be about anything and everything. I love animated Disney musicals myself, but I would never suggest that WDAS stick to films with "music and fantastical elements rooted in fairytales or mythology or literature" in a way that implies that if they go outside their comfort zone their films cease to be interesting. Frankly, that is creatively limiting.

I would never discuss movies like Wreck-It Ralph or Zootopia of being Pixar-like in a negative manner. If those were the movies Rich Moore and Byron Howard wanted to make, then kudos to them for sticking to their guns and making their movie that way they wanted. If it was imposed on them, then that is a different matter and cause for concern. In my view, if directors at WDAS want to take inspiration from Pixar's film-making style, then let them. If they want to be inspired by German Expressionist films, then let them. If they want to try their hand at a Shrek-like DreamWorks-inspired film, then let them. Forget this obsession with a movie being "Disney" or "UnDisney". There is no such thing. The more variety of stories and film-making styles I see from WDAS the more I will be impressed (even if I may not necessarily personally like the resultant films so much.)

If I were Chief Creative Officer at WDAS I'd push for the studio to create more unusual, traditionally unDisney-like animated films along with more conventional ones (I'm guessing some of you are sweating profusely right now, lol ). Furthermore, I'd even attempt to convince Bob Iger to let WDAS make more adult-oriented, lower-budget movies which Disney can release under a resurrected Touchstone Pictures banner. (Admittedly I'd have had a much better shot at that before Disney's obsession with franchises and Disney+.) Alternatively, if I were Bob Iger himself I would give WDAS carte blanche to make the movies they want to make, irrespective of whether it's a simple kiddie-film aimed at the under 10 crowd or a full-blown space horror epic in the style of Ridley Scott's Alien. And I would push to make the WDAS brand (not the general "Disney" brand) accepted as a producer of more adult films. By adult films I don't mean something like "Sausage Party", but more like a regular film which deals with adult themes and drama (not necessarily profanity or extreme sexual content.) They may even still get a PG rating, but kids may not be into them as the stories will not interest them. These films could be like Miyazaki's "The Wind Rises". I don't recall that one having any inappropriate content for kids, but it is obviously a film for adults (irrespective of any G or PG rating it may have.)

Oh, and yes, I would happily include that aforementioned space horror film in the same canon list with The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh! I am not joking. I am perfectly serious.

In a nutshell, that is my vision for WDAS. Feel free to comment.

The thing is, what Disney made before Lasseter came along is considered "unDisney" by the people in charge now, which is the main reason we don't see those kinds of films anymore. Being an extension of PIXAR is all Disney's brand is anymore. I doubt there's any choice involved in that, because even Musker & Clements got ate up and spit out of the buddy roadtrip meatgrinder.

Jules wrote:In my humble opinion a film from Walt Disney Animation Studios can be about anything and everything. I love animated Disney musicals myself, but I would never suggest that WDAS stick to films with "music and fantastical elements rooted in fairytales or mythology or literature" in a way that implies that if they go outside their comfort zone their films cease to be interesting. Frankly, that is creatively limiting.

Disney has taken on a lot of different subject matters over the decades to varying degrees of success. I think their best films (and the ones I enjoy the most) are either musicals and/or fairytale and literary adaptations. I don't think that's creatively limiting because it's such a broad spectrum. It still allows for uniqueness and differentiation between its output. I don't need WDAS to do everything. I can get other types of stories from other studios. Not to mention when they do veer off, it's usually to copy other studios like DreamWorks and Pixar. Chasing after what's popular instead of leading the way is sad, unoriginal, and uncreative. I think WDAS should stick to what they do best and what they are known for. Every studio has an identity. Preserving theirs and honoring their legacy is something positive in my book. Muddling and diluting that identity and ignoring their legacy is not.

I like that Disney has a variety of films to choose from. Sometimes I want a fairy tale musical like TLM, sometimes I want a mystery like TGMD, or a comedy like TENG or an adventure like TBC or an uplifting triumph story like Dumbo, or a coming of age story like TF+tH...you get my point. I'm personally grateful for their variety, and I like them all.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I like that Disney has a variety of films to choose from. Sometimes I want a fairy tale musical like TLM, sometimes I want a mystery like TGMD, or a comedy like TENG or an adventure like TBC or an uplifting triumph story like Dumbo, or a coming of age story like TF+tH...you get my point. I'm personally grateful for their variety, and I like them all.

All those fall within the "fairytale/mythology/literary adaptations" we were talking about, proving there can be variety within those parameters. I wasn't saying they should only be making fairytale musicals.

It's a shame we haven't had a straight animal film in a long time either. Even more weird when you consider TLK, Bambi, The Jungle Book, Dalmatians, etc. are some of the studio's greatest films ever made.

It has been a long time. I prefer the naturalistic animal films to the anthropomorphic ones.

Well, I do enjoy Zootopia very much, but I'd like to see something more in the vein of Bambi and TF&tH again--something set in the woods. I wonder if HOTR might have something to do with Disney's avoidance of those kind of films?

Sotiris wrote: All those fall within the "fairytale/mythology/literary adaptations" we were talking about, proving there can be variety within those parameters. I wasn't saying they should only be making fairytale musicals.

Oh, I gotcha. Thanks for clarifying, and never mind!

Disney's Divinity wrote:I wonder if HOTR might have something to do with Disney's avoidance of those kind of films?

Bolt's performance was most likely what deterred them from doing more animal films.

Sotiris, I loved loved your long post.

My concern actually is strangely enough, if they're making too much girl content. Zootopia and Ralph Breaks the Internet might have male and female leads, but they're still slightly focused on girls, patricularly the latter. Now, we have Frozen 2, Raya and Encanto, which still sounds like girl centered. It is funny that Pixar has mostly boy movies and WDAS has girl movies. Is it intentional?

DisneyFan09 wrote:Colombia??

Don´t get me wrong, I´ve got nothing against Colombia. But I just can´t see how magic is perceivable with that nation. So it means that it´s going to be a modern setting.

Well, they found magic in America, didn't they? (New Orleans voodoo.)

disneyprincess11 wrote:Sotiris, I loved loved your long post.

Thanks! What makes Disney, "Disney" is more than just subject matter. It's the execution. Take Chicken Little, for example. It's based on a folktale and features anthropomorphic animals which is something totally in their wheelhouse. On paper, it should have been another classic. But the execution was not at all "Disney-esque," for lack of a better word.

disneyprincess11 wrote:Well, they found magic in America, didn't they? (New Orleans voodoo.)

They can totally find some Colombian myths and folklore that involves magic and fantastical elements if they want to. But if it's set in modern times, it'll be more difficult to bring those elements in organically.

Disney's Divinity wrote:The thing is, what Disney made before Lasseter came along is considered "unDisney" by the people in charge now, which is the main reason we don't see those kinds of films anymore. Being an extension of PIXAR is all Disney's brand is anymore. I doubt there's any choice involved in that, because even Musker & Clements got ate up and spit out of the buddy roadtrip meatgrinder.

Interestingly, whereas I will admit that the 2000s films can be wildly inconsistent, I very much appreciate that WDAS was trying out new stuff - even when their experiments didn't always work out.

Sotiris wrote:Disney has taken on a lot of different subject matters over the decades to varying degrees of success. I think their best films (and the ones I enjoy the most) are either musicals and/or fairytale and literary adaptations. I don't think that's creatively limiting because it's such a broad spectrum. It still allows for uniqueness and differentiation between its output. I don't need WDAS to do everything. I can get other types of stories from other studios. Not to mention when they do veer off, it's usually to copy other studios like DreamWorks and Pixar. Chasing after what's popular instead of leading the way is sad, unoriginal, and uncreative. I think WDAS should stick to what they do best and what they are known for. Every studio has an identity. Preserving theirs and honoring their legacy is something positive in my book. Muddling and diluting that identity and ignoring their legacy is not.

The red-coloured portion of the quote is something I wanted to write yesterday (I didn't because I'd been on a chair with the computer on my lap for about 7 hours and was exhausted ). Yes, this is something that I've long wanted to point out to people who especially criticise the WDAS films as all being "cut from the same cloth." They aren't! There's incredible variety in the canon, and it's that variety which keeps it interesting. I know this may not be a popular opinion but I actually like WIR and its sequel not just as movies but also for the fact that they make the WDAS canon more exotic. Who'd have thought 20 years ago that in the same line-up with films like Snow White and Bambi, you'd have a movie about video games and another about the internet? Admittedly, this is less about the genre and more about the subject matter. I think that even if I generally disliked these two films I would still have no problem with them being in the canon.

I should clarify that when in my previous post I wrote that WDAS should do anything and everything I didn't mean that they abandon their roots. If anything, I think alternating between very traditional, conventional films (the sort people expect from the studio) and highly experimental ones (that are a total 180 from their usual output) would create excellent contrast and highlight their creativity and willingness to explore new ideas. You can preserve your identity whilst trying out new things that do not fit within that established identity.

Is it copying to try making movies in another studio's style? I prefer to think of it as taking inspiration. And in the end, the important thing is that the resulting film is good (unlike many of those studios in the 1990s who copied the WDAS style to usually little success.) Now that you bring up Chicken Little, then yes, that was an attempt at copying another studio's style gone awry. However Chicken Little came at a very difficult time in WDAS' history. It is clearly DESPERATE to be the new DreamWorks movie, but in trying it completely botches everything that makes the DreamWorks movies work. I've written in past of how I'd kill to know Chicken Little's behind-the-scenes story, and while I feel the film is a complete and utter mess, I get the feeling the film-makers themselves aren't entirely to blame. I suspect there was tons of pressure on Dindal and Fullmer to ape the DreamWorks films as well as lack of confidence at the studio at this point which led them to create the hodgepodge that is this film in the hopes that something will stick.

I have to go now. I'll write more on my feelings on Chicken Little some other time. Toodles!