DVDizzy Forum

merlinjones wrote:>>...I felt that maybe due to the fact that these are pretty old designs, the character animation was more sophisticated.<<

One thing I love about the original classic 1960's Pooh films is that the directing animators were able - through design and movement - to capture the idea that these were stuffed animals come to life, not merely cartoon animals (as they later seemed to become for WDTVA). Were they able to get that in the new version?

yeah, they definitely felt like stuffed animals. Very much like in the original shorts. I agree that was lost in the 90s and more recent Pooh stuff.

PatrickvD wrote:

Sotiris wrote: Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... front.html

That is the dumbest statement ever. There has never even been an $800 million worldwide grossing traditionally animated feature.

UGH!

That's probably because no hand drawn animated movie has really done a lot of business since 2000, or something .

I do have to ask what Disney is trying to do here. Bringing back the hand drawn animation department was of course a great idea, but by making yet another musical (doesn't Disney understand people were pretty much sick of those in the first place) or a Winnie the Pooh movie, you won't get your audiences back. If they really want to do what Walt might have done, I'd suggest they look forward, not backward.

I think Disney should continue to make musicals. Not every year, and not in the same fashion of the 90's, but it's part of their legacy and the Disney brand wouldn't be (and hasn't been) the same if they were to abandon the genre completely.

"The Princess and the Frog" didn't fail because it was a musical, and it didn't fail because it was traditional animation. The characters and story were weak and it didn't generate enough interest to revitalize the medium. "Winnie the Pooh", while tastefully done, was never the best idea.

"Rio" is a musical (with horrible tunes to boot) and it's doing really well at the box office.

I have to agree that it was brilliant of Disney to bring back musicals. I absolutely loved The Princess and the Frog and Tangled, and the musical aspect of them was a big part of it.

I would be sad to see that go away again...

Just saw it! It was very cute and very funny. Still, I don't think it fits in the Disney Animated Classics canon...is that really their follow-up to masterpieces like Princess and the Frog and Tangled?

monorail91 wrote:Just saw it! It was very cute and very funny. Still, I don't think it fits in the Disney Animated Classics canon...is that really their follow-up to masterpieces like Princess and the Frog and Tangled?

Was The Aristocats really their follow up to masterpieces like Jungle Book, 101 Dalmations, and Sleeping Beauty?

I don't think every single release needs to be an epic awesome movie. Too much pressure.

I actually think Winnie the Pooh is an all around better film than The Princess and the Frog.....

Yes. I said it.

No matter how great and ambitious certain aspects of that film were, the pacing is off. Big time. And repeat viewings don't solve this problem for me either.

Winnie the Pooh, short as it was, had a nice flow. I was impressed by how they got these different stories together in one film. It works.

megustajake wrote:"The Princess and the Frog" didn't fail because it was a musical, and it didn't fail because it was traditional animation. The characters and story were weak and it didn't generate enough interest to revitalize the medium. "Winnie the Pooh", while tastefully done, was never the best idea.

I agree with the first half, but disagree with the second.

Winnie the pooh was incredibly cheap to produce all the character designs/backgrounds/story etc had already been established. The film has yet been released in 90% of the world wide market and Winnie the pooh has apparently always been a consistent seller on the home market. I think it's "failure" in the European market may largely be attributed marketing personally, so hopefully Disney will see this and give it a bigger push in other areas.

edit: sorry I misread your post I thought you said "never a good idea" not "best idea"

Yeah, TPatF "failing" really had nothing to do with it being a musical. I think it just wasn't an appealing concept. People love fantasy Disney musicals. Sure, a couple contemporary musicals such as "Oliver & Company" succeed, but people mainly want a fantasy.

I'm a sophomore in college and my friends and strangers have all been in love with "Tangled" - many unknowingly echoing the press releases "it's like a classic Disney musical - but in computer animation!" "It's so cute, it made me feel like a kid again!"

Every one of them saw and adored Tangled. I asked them all if they had seen "Princess and the Frog" and either they had never heard of it or just had no interest to see it.

I really think it boils down to us being children of the 90s. Having been born between 1989 and 1991, we were among the first children to see the Renaissance 4 in theaters and/or on VHS. We have fond memories of fantastical princesses, not modernistic ones.

On the other hand, when I tell them about "Winnie the Pooh" they seem fairly excited. However, many of them are average Disney consumers and do not understand the separation between official sequels such as "Fantasia" and "Fantasia/2000" versus unofficial i.e. "Cinderella" and "Cinderella II: Dreams Come True." Therefore, this new Pooh is no different than "Pooh's Heffalump Movie" or "The Tigger Movie."

I usually sell it to them by saying "Zooey Deschanel sings the songs." My friends are what you may stereotype as 'hipsters' or 'hippies' - so the prospect of vegan/hipster princess Zooey D. singing "Winnie the Pooh" songs is titillating for them!

Richard Crouse interviews the voice of Winnie the Pooh!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P67eY2-Gh4E

Sotiris- I'm a huge Jim Cummings fan so thank you for the interview!

enigmawing wrote:Sotiris- I'm a huge Jim Cummings fan so thank you for the interview!

No problem!

Victurtle wrote:Winnie the pooh was incredibly cheap to produce all the character designs/backgrounds/story etc had already been established. The film has yet been released in 90% of the world wide market and Winnie the pooh has apparently always been a consistent seller on the home market. I think it's "failure" in the European market may largely be attributed marketing personally, so hopefully Disney will see this and give it a bigger push in other areas.

I think it does have something to do with marketing. I'm in France at the moment, and haven't seen much aside from a few small posters (it probably also didn't help that the posters advertised free "toddler's first movie" certificates ). I have noticed some merchandise, but Pooh stuff has always been available, so much of the new merchandise may not seem all that attention grabbing in the same way that stuff for a film like Tangled was. I'd also take these reasons into account:

1. The spring breaks this year have been kinda off because of the late Easter, and some schools may not have been off when the film came out.

2. There have been a number of major animated films out for Easter. I think now that this may have been a reason for Disney changing the release date in the US to July. As far as I know, Winnie the Pooh is going to be the only new animated film released in July. Films like Rio and Rango have taken more potential seats away from Winnie the Pooh than Harry Potter probably will.

3. The gap between Tangled and Winnie the Pooh has been quite short overall. Remember also that Tangled only came out in January or February in certain countries (such as the UK and Spain).

Personally I've not seen the film (and sad to say, will probably wait until DVD/Blu-Ray).

Okay, from what I read on Wikipedia, three of the five stories were cut from the final film. That is probably no wonder the movie's 69 minutes long. Anyone else bothered by this?

DisneyJedi wrote:Okay, from what I read on Wikipedia, three of the five stories were cut from the final film. That is probably no wonder the movie's 69 minutes long. Anyone else bothered by this?

Maybe those were cut for a good reason? If you let weak material stay in a movie, just to pad the running time, I think you're doing something wrong as a filmmaker.

KubrickFan wrote:

DisneyJedi wrote:Okay, from what I read on Wikipedia, three of the five stories were cut from the final film. That is probably no wonder the movie's 69 minutes long. Anyone else bothered by this?

Maybe those were cut for a good reason? If you let weak material stay in a movie, just to pad the running time, I think you're doing something wrong as a filmmaker.

Doesn't make me feel any less cheated.

Didn't they originally say they were going to toss in one of the old segments from 'Many Adventures'? Could that be part of what was removed from the final release?

Neal wrote:Didn't they originally say they were going to toss in one of the old segments from 'Many Adventures'? Could that be part of what was removed from the final release?

Having seen it, I'd say no. That wouldn't have made sense at all.

PatrickvD wrote:

Neal wrote:Didn't they originally say they were going to toss in one of the old segments from 'Many Adventures'? Could that be part of what was removed from the final release?

Having seen it, I'd say no. That wouldn't have made sense at all.

Actually, I do remember that being said in an interviewer or something a while back.

I like how it was told as one continuous narrative, not divided up like Many Adventures. It felt like a full-length feature (rather than a compilation).