Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: The 1920's may not be contemporary in terms of the audience watching the film. But it IS way off in terms of the proper time period for the original story. And if your goal is to reflect the mood of the original story, you don't mess around with it's setting unless you just don't care to remain faithful to it. It's a good thing Disney didn't produce Lord of the Rings or the setting might have been some modern ghetto. ORWEN: As for trying to compare 101 Dalmatians with, say, Sleeping Beauty we weren't trying to do that. 101 Dalmatians and The Rescuers are more modern stories and have nothing to do with the point we were trying to make. If anything, more contemporary stories like those would be a lot easier to take if Disney wanted to modernize them. ORDDU: But when talking strictly about fairy tales--which is all we were trying to do--we were merely expressing a preference to keep them more traditional and conservative. If this sentiment offends anyone it shouldn't and it seems that some of you ducklings are reacting in a way that has nothing to do with what this topic is all about. ORWEN: As far as our 'condemning' Disney's Frog Princess, we reserve the right to do just that if we don't like how badly it sounds it's being treated. We were equally disappointed with Chicken Little because it totally missed the mark for what we would have preferred. That doesn't mean it was a bad movie in it's own right. It's just that--after all was said and done--it had very little to do with the original story it was based on. And giving the main character a sex change just went too far for us. ORDDU: But if that sort of thing doesn't happen to bother you, then you have every right to love these kinds of films all you want. So many of our reactions are very subjective, anyway, and we shouldn't criticize each other's opinions just because we happen to disagree. After all, you may think nothing at all of being tortured for long hours deep within a certain Horned King's dungeon-- ORWEN: --whereas we--who have undergone way too much torture down there as it is--have no more tolerance for it. It's just a matter of preference. We prefer things one way; some of the rest of you prefer things to be a different way.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <---- Stands up and applauds the Witches of Morva. [crowd noise]
Originally Posted By u k fan I have no interest in laboring this point particularly, but I feel I must back this up. Here are some links showing Chicken Licken as a boy <a href="http://www.whsmith.co.uk/WHS/Go.asp?isbn=0721415628&DB=220&Menu=Books" target="_blank">http://www.whsmith.co.uk/WHS/G o.asp?isbn=0721415628&DB=220&Menu=Books</a> <a href="http://www.redcross.org.uk/standard.asp?id=56049" target="_blank">http://www.redcross.org.uk/sta ndard.asp?id=56049</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chicken-Licken-Jonathan-Allen/dp/0552143383" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chicke n-Licken-Jonathan-Allen/dp/0552143383</a> Now I will acknowledge that I have also found as many if not more links saying that Chicken Licken (sorry I prefer that name as it fits with the rest of the characters) is a girl, but my point here is that this story is not as cut and dry as say Cinderella. People can't even agree on the name of the title character for crying out loud. Wikipedia, whilst not the most reliable source, even says that the origins are unknown for this tale and that the first recorded version of this tale had a central character that was a rabbit. I'll be honest with you, I thought that Chicken Little had it's moments, but was not one of Disney's finest. I even preferred HOTR (now I've lost all credibility), but having the central character be male was the least of it's worries. To get back on the topic of The Frog Princess, one gem that I found on wiki about Chicken Licken's mantra that "The Sky is Falling" was the following: "The phrase has also become used to indicate a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent." I'll leave that with you as it's bedtime now!!!
Originally Posted By TheRedhead Ever since Shrek -literally- crapped on traditional fairy tales, and audiences ate it up, I would imagine any studio would feel wary about a full-length traditional fairy tale cartoon. But take a look at what Disney has in the works right now that we know of - ENCHANTED, which will start with an old school animated traditional fairy tale RAPUNZEL, which is looking less and less like a snarky fractured fairy tale and more traditional So I think it's a good (and logical) move to set FROG PRINCESS differently. Audiences are cynical. They love this modern stuff (The Donkey said 'Tic-Tac'...brilliant!). And too many bavarian houses will make people and critics revolt. I also trust Musker and Clements, ya know, the guys who brought back the traditional fairy tale. Their hands were tied on Treasure Planet - I'm excited to see what they do in this new environment.
Originally Posted By u k fan I'd rank Treasure Planet in my top 5 Disney movies. There goes my credibility again!!!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA ^^^You and Kar2oonMan like 'Treasure Planet.' I thought it was boring as toast. In fact, 'Treasure Planet' 'Brother Bear' 'Home on the Range' and 'Chicken Little' were all complete misfires. It's no wonder Disney decided to shut down feature animation.
Originally Posted By actingforanimators I too would rank Treasure Planet very high on the list of contemporary features. I sincerely believe that it will eventually find its place in film history and come to be seen by the majority of critics and fans as one of the most underrated and overlooked works the studio produced. In my opinion, Mike Surrey's animation of Buck in HOTR is a comic tour de force, and Brother Bear is a simple, uncomplicated and lovely story of which everyone involved should be truly proud. Even poor Chicken Little has some surprising and fun moments to to recommend it, as well as praise for having advanced 3-D entertainment. Are these "perfect" films? I'd wager not for most people, and in most instances say not for me personally (with the exception of Treasure Planet) but not every film has to be a masterpiece of memorable block-busting entertainment. Some films are better realized than others, including some of the so-called mega hits (I personally find BATB lacking in more ways than it succeeds - still a good film, but not and on a par with The Little Mermaid, and thus not a favorite of mine) But that's the point of it all - a personal perspective, not a collective. And just as important is a perspective that results from seeing a completed work, and judging it as an individual creative work. What saddens me most, WITCHES, m'dears, is that for such a literate, lovely, articulate and visionary crew, I'm puzzled by the inexorable stand you take on something you haven't yet encountered as a finished product. It's on par with saying you don't like newt eyes just because you don't like the sound of them, or the way aunt Bielzabub made them every year for Solstice back when you were barely out of Coven. C'mon. It's one thing to be the champion of a particular style, but to uniformly reject another approach and dismiss it without giving it a chance - particularly when the artists crafting it have a superior track record (second only to the late Dave Hand) ....well, it just strikes me as not fair, and not living up to what I've otherwise come to expect of you. And for what it's worth...I like newt...and toast, too.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead I like Treasure Planet. When I skip the first 14 minutes, I love Treasure Planet. And Treasure Planet in IMAX is one of the best rides Disney has made in a decade.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I remember getting yelled at on these boards for not thinking 'Home on the Range' was the funniest, cleverest, most coloful pieces of Disney animation in their recent history. I remember being told that I didn't have any sense of what comedy was because I didn't think 'Home on the Range' was funny. I still don't think 'Home on the Range' is funny, and I still think it has real story problems. I don't like 'Home on the Range.' And as for making a judgement before something is completed. Don't we do this all the time? All of us? Having an opinion about the treatment of 'The Frog Princess' with an African-American cast and Randy Newman doing the music -- we're not allowed to have an opinion about this? If opinions before the final project weren't important, why have previews of coming attractions at the movies? For the preview of 'Meet the Robinsons' just have a title screen with the text 'Meet the Robinsons' followed by another title screen 'Don't judge it until you've seen it.'
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Quick thought about the New Orleans stuff and accents: What if the entire cast spoke like Tia Dalma? I would love it! Very few people would know what was going on, but the people who understood it would see no reason why others couldn't understand it. I like it!
Originally Posted By actingforanimators >>For the preview of 'Meet the Robinsons' just have a title screen with the text 'Meet the Robinsons' followed by another title screen 'Don't judge it until you've seen it.'<< Very clever, and evidence that you're getting better than me when it comes to pithy sarcasm. Yes, Paul, you were told that you didn't have any sense of what comedy was and I was the one who told you. And, I have twice posted here that I was smug for the tone I took in that post, and way out of line. (Even more smug than above...if such a thing is possible) I have apologized to you for it three times now: twice on these boards and once in a personal email to you. I'm sorry that the sting of my boorishness lingers two years later, and even sorrier that you found it necessary to bring it up again. Truly, I had no idea that this was still something remembered and un-forgiven, and I can guarantee you that it stings me equally to exhume the humiliating stench of it . So, allow me one last time to go on record that those comments were not my finest hour, in fact they were an embarrassing low point. You are neither without wit or a sense of taste or comedy – not when you were living in Pasadena and not now that you live in Merced. My arrogant and superior comments were out of line and wrong two years ago, and still wrong, and I hope that in the spirit of the season we might both be able to let it pass once and for all. Having attempted to learn from past mistakes, I am more than willing to enter into a high spirited yet civil debate with anyone who has seen a film and can hold forth good reasoning for an opinion different than mine. But judging it BEFORE seeing it or without ever having seen it seems to me the sport of sheep, not intelligent and well educated individuals, like yourself. Failure to be fair minded rather than sheepish is something I find terribly disappointing in men and women of above average intelligence, of which you are WAY above average and I can't for the life of me figure out why you insist on taking this tact. This, is where I feel the vast majority of my frustration with what I see you post some times. Please note that I have not said in this post that anyone isn't allowed an opinion. I may bully, but I’m not a fascist. I do hold that the veracity with which some people seem to insist on condemning a film for which there is nothing more than a synopsis, a supervising creative crew, and a cast breakdown is a confounding thing. And yes, frankly, it gets my goat. If you will, I find it akin to hiring a job candidate solely on a resume and not interviewing them, as if the paper and the paper alone says it all. I dare say your excellent business (candidates from which I've interviewed and recommended hiring, and which I’ve recommended to the HR departments of a half dozen industry houses and studio divisions) would be hard pressed to have the unprecedented and well deserved success and continuing good reputation it enjoys if you operated in a similar fashion. Surely you would agree. While previews are based on the final product - and it's worth noting that I personally have not seen any previews for "The Frog Princess" - they are edited by a marketing division of the corporate parent or the distribution arm thereof, and are designed to appeal to the demographic in the markets in which they are exhibited and the features to which they are attached. This is just my own personal opinion, but I detest previews and I have yet to see one that actually gave me a true feel for the film. The last previews I actually liked and couldn’t wait to see were immediately after “Wonderful World of Colorâ€. If previews and opinions based thereon were truly a good way to judge any film, then it's entirely likely that "Hook" would have been the most awarded and beloved film of the 20th Century. r.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA You know what? actingforanimators is absolutely correct. actingforanimators and I did have this discussion already and he apologized for his comments, not only on the boards, but in a personal email. And I am being a total butthead -- not only for not remembering but for tearing open an old scab and pouring salt into it. Honesly? I forgot that it had been resolved, and when I read the comments about 'Don't judge a movie until it's complete' I ran right to that time when 'Home on the Range' was released. Guess I can hold a grudge, huh? My apologies again to actingforanimators for the outburst and snippy comments. PAX
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <^^^You and Kar2oonMan like 'Treasure Planet.' I thought it was boring as toast.> Dude, have you ever had butter on toast? Awesome man...just awesome.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Blech, I don't like jelly. You keep your jelly Kevin, and I'll keep my 2 girls on "Another World". ;-P
Originally Posted By mawnck I have never been able to get 100% behind the "don't judge it until you've seen it" argument. We judge EVERY movie before we see it. That's how we decide whether to see it or not. If I hear that, say, Frederik Du Chau is, despite all that is good and holy in the world, going to direct another movie, and it's, say, a live-action adaptation of an old 60's animated TV show (say, Underdog) that was pretty dumb to begin with, and I say "boy that sucker's going to honk," would you consider me out of line? Would you be willing to bet that I'm wrong? Thing is, WDFA has disappointed a lot of us in the recent past for various reasons, and if we see those same things happening again, I don't see why we shouldn't squawk, even if the flick in question is still in preproduction. It is an internet discussion board after all. Yes, we've all heard it's a new day at Disney. I'm personally looking forward (cautiously) to The Frog Princess. I agree that the Witches' criteria for judging upcoming animated features is way too restrictive, and will result in them missing a lot of enjoyable movies. And I'm sure not shy about saying so. But I guess I'm starting to sympathize with them a bit. They are entitled to their opinion, whether the film is finished or started or whatever. We are entitled to try and talk 'em out of it, and then to shuddup, and live and let live.
Originally Posted By mawnck I have never been able to get 100% behind the "don't judge it until you've seen it" argument. We judge EVERY movie before we see it. That's how we decide whether to see it or not. If I hear that, say, Frederik Du Chau is, despite all that is good and holy in the world, going to direct another movie, and it's, say, a live-action adaptation of an old 60's animated TV show (say, Underdog) that was pretty dumb to begin with, and I say "boy that sucker's going to honk," would you consider me out of line? Would you be willing to bet that I'm wrong? Thing is, WDFA has disappointed a lot of us in the recent past for various reasons, and if we see those same things happening again, I don't see why we shouldn't squawk, even if the flick in question is still in preproduction. It is an internet discussion board after all. Yes, we've all heard it's a new day at Disney. I'm personally looking forward (cautiously) to The Frog Princess. I agree that the Witches' criteria for judging upcoming animated features is way too restrictive, and will result in them missing a lot of enjoyable movies. And I'm sure not shy about saying so. But I guess I'm starting to sympathize with them a bit. They are entitled to their opinion, whether the film is finished or started or whatever. We are entitled to try and talk 'em out of it, and then to shuddup, and live and let live.
Originally Posted By basil fan Actually, it's a sticky point, and one can't safely go 100% in either direction. On the one hand, one can not simply watch every film that comes down the pike, nor would you want to try. You may hate a certain genre, a particular actor, a director's style, or whatever. Sometimes the trailer just looks awful. Sometimes you just know you'll hate it. And you're often right. On the other hand, one can easily take this too far. No doubt we can all think of films we were sure we'd hate, but turned out liking after all. I can. I was sure I'd hate Emperor's New Groove and would like Finding Nemo, & look what happened. I almost didn't see Lord of the Rings because I didn't like the "look" (still can't stand the hairstyles, but love the film). So it's certainly possible to be wrong in your preconceived opinions. But again, you can't go out and watch every awful film. Maybe the WofM really can't enjoy any film that takes the plot of a fairy tale and moves it to a different locale or to time period after a certain point (20th century?). I have an aunt who refuses to watch anything black & white. Okay, I personally think that's ridiculous, but maybe it's really impossible for her to like anything without color. Maybe it's impossible for my former co-worker to like any movie that takes place in the past. My brother still won't try Princess Diaries. I agree one should keep one's pre-film judgements within reasonable limits, but ultimately, you know your own taste. And if you're locked into (or out of, I guess) a certain mode, then you've gotta stay there. But maybe you should think of the exceptions before declaring that every sequel must be bad, or any film made after a park attraction has to stink. I tried and tried, but I just couldn't say this in a shorter post. So if you waded through all that, then let me add that all the above is simply MHO. The Ballad of Gilligan's Trial <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/etc/gilligan.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ etc/gilligan.html</a>
