Originally Posted By Marove I was just wondering, although I don't think Walt Disney pictures really numbers the animated pictures right now. Should CGI films belong to the 44+ Disney animated features canon, or should they be in a category of their own?... (ex.. 1. Chicken Little, 2. Meet the Robinsons, 3. American Dog, etc...) I know many lists do put the CGI films attached to the Disney canon, making Chicken Little the 45th. But I'm curious what other people think...
Originally Posted By mawnck At this point, I think you're on your own. The "canon" is pretty shot after post-Wells Eisner. Don't forget, "Dinosaur" was CGI also. While compiling your list, you might find this site helpful, for more reasons than you think: <a href="http://www.animatedmovieguide.com/" target="_blank">http://www.animatedmovieguide. com/</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug FWIW, here is what the company's official website has to say: >>We are no longer numbering our animated features due to the changing face of animation. With live-action/computer generated hybrid films like "Dinosaur" and theatrical releases produced by our TV Animation division like "The Tigger Movie," determining what "counts" in our legacy of full-length animated features has become a challenge. Therefore, we have decided to stop numbering each feature and let the films stand on their own.<< <a href="http://psc.disney.go.com/guestservices/8695.html" target="_blank">http://psc.disney.go.com/guest services/8695.html</a> Oddly, the list that precedes this ends in 2002 with Lilo and Stitch. But it includes Pixar films, DisneyToon Studio releases, and even Dinosaur. (They count 54 films!) I doubt that the list compiled by Disney Archives would agree with this. But it has become increasingly difficult to identify Disney animated films. A rather exhaustive compilation can be found in the Wikipedia. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_animated_features" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L ist_of_Disney_animated_features</a> These have been pretty neatly categorized; they even note films distributed by Touchstone and Miramax.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: Speaking of 'The Frog Princess', why is it that Musker and Clemmnos always have to twist the classic stories in such a way that they have very little resemblance to the original stories they're based on? ORWEN: Isn't it bad enough that Chicken Little was ruined by those other dumb clucks who insisted on giving Henny Penny a sex change? And don't even get me started on what's being done to destroy Rapunzel!! ORGOCH: Much as I like frogs, I don't much care fer no frog PRINCESS! That's just a might too scary fer me! ORWEN: The original Frog PRINCE is what we wanna' see--not some fractured version that's being made mostly to please its creaters instead of the general public. ORDDU: It would seem that the future of all fairytales at Disney is to turn out bastardized versions that would be better off with totally different titles that have no links with the stories that inspired such monstrosities. ORWEN: I'm just glad Uncle Walt gave us versions of the fairy tales that still retained SOME semblance of their original counterparts. ORDDU: It's not that we mind a few changes, here and there, to add spice, drama or comedic relief. But the way things have been going, lately, the fairy tales Disney is turning out, now, are being distorted so badly that there's hardly any recognition between them and the original stories. Musker and Clemmons--along with certain other current story tellers at Disney--are just too abstract in their approach to fairy tales and their ideas don't appeal to us at all. ORWEN: I guess they didn't learn their lesson from a failed Treasure Planet. Turning classics into bizzare, abstract versions of the originals means you risk alienating large segments of the audience.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORGOCH: And speakin' a bein' abstract 'n bizzare, ya sure went an' murdered Clemmons name back there, sister!
Originally Posted By basil fan Actually, I'm pretty sure Frog Princess is NOT a female version of the well-known Frog Prince story, but a Russian fairy tale about an actual female character. Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/glitch/sdglitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ glitch/sdglitch.html</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Turning classics into bizzare, abstract versions of the originals means you risk alienating large segments of the audience. << I could mention Pinocchio, The Jungle Book, Robin Hood, Hunchback, Tarzan, The Sword in the Stone, The Great Mouse Detective, Oliver and Company, The Little Mermaid, Hercules, Mulan, Mary Poppins, and (if I wanted to be really snarky) The Lion King. But I won't.
Originally Posted By Marove Yeah.. although whether they were to do The Frog Prince or The Frog Princess, a story about a prince (or even princess) turned into a frog who wants to be human again does have a storyline similar to Beauty and the Beast, and even a little bit like The Little Mermaid, a mermaid wanting to become human... (Similar to how Snow White and Sleeping Beauty have similar storylines, or even Bambi and The Lion King, and in a few ways, The Jungle Book and Tarzan.)
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORDDU: You can mention those classics all you want, mawnck duckling. But if you do you are showing just how much you miss the point my sisters and I were trying to make. None of those classics--with the exception of Oliver & Co. and Robin Hood, which we also didn't care for--were twisted to the point where they so abstract they insulted the originals. ORWEN: And The Lion King WAS an original story by Disney--although some say it slightly resembled another foreign story about a lion cub. But I don't think Disney ever admitted they were influenced by whatever other story that happened to be. ORDDU: When Oliver & Comapany and Robin Hood were released, we assure you we were equally dissatisfied. Changing human characters into animals--when the original story was written about humans--is not to our liking, either. Or giving a character a sex change--as in the case of Chicken Little--just to satisfy the tastes of a few--goes too far just for the sake of unncessary changes.
Originally Posted By DlandDug This is the second time you have mentioned a "sex change" for Henny Penny. Was that supposed to be a male? Because I assumed Henny Penny was a big strapping girl chicken who played sports well. You know-- sorta like Martina with pin feathers. Or did I miss something?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>None of those classics--with the exception of Oliver & Co. and Robin Hood, which we also didn't care for--were twisted to the point where they so abstract they insulted the originals.<< Ah, but therein lies the rub. I took a college class from a leading authority on Arthurian legends, and insulting was *exactly* how he described The Sword in the Stone. We know P. L. Travers was quite unhappy with Mary Poppins (and pretty much everything else in life as well, apparently), most Kipling fans were infuriated with the Jungle Book, Disney flushed the original ending of the Little Mermaid, Pinocchio didn't smoosh Jiminy Cricket on their first meeting like in the book, the Brits still haven't gotten over Christopher Robin's American accent . . . who gets to decide which changes are an insult and which aren't? I think it's OK to object to changes that you find distasteful. I do it all the time. But I think it's getting carried away to make statements about what's "too" much twisting and what's not, based on your own personal likes and dislikes. Dug, I think the Witches refer to the main character, Chicken Little, who was a hen named Henny Penny in some versions of the original story. I personally didn't care what sex he/she was as long as the movie was good. And it wasn't. Just as an OT aside, since I raised the issue, I don't think The Lion King was based on Kimba the White Lion either. The similarities, while numerous, were reasonable for two similar projects inspired by the same source material (Hamlet and Bambi). However, it sucked that Disney denied any knowledge of Kimba whatsoever when the issue was raised, particularly when Walt himself was on the record as being a Kimba fan, and gave creator Osamu Tezuka a tour of the Burbank studios in the 60s. But my reference in the earlier post was a joke. A little joke. About that big. =
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Yes, Henny Penny was originally a girl in the original Chicken Little. And she should have STAYED that way or else the Disney version should have come up with an original title so as not to confuse fans of the REAL Chicken Little. ORDDU: And, yes, it's a matter of personal tastes, mawnck, duckling. All the Disney classics have had significant changes in them that strayed from the original. But it seems that--as time goes by--the more recent changes have become so drastic that it makes a witch wonder why Disney doesn't just slap different titles on their films, rather than create original plot lines that have nothing to do with the original stories they're supposedly based on. If a classic has to be altered so much, it really shouldn't even try to pretend it's the same story. Disney should create original titles to go along with all these mostly original stories that the script writers have come up with.
Originally Posted By basil fan Where was Henny Penny at all in CGI Chicken Little? I just saw it again & must've missed her. Beyond Experiment 62 <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/stitch.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/stitch.html</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug OK, now I'm confused. Foxy Loxy was the baseball playing girl in Disney's Chicken Little. I do not recall any character, male or female, identified as Henny Penny.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros And I always thought that Foxy Loxy was supposed to be a male. That's what he (it?) was in the original Disney Chicken Little short from the 30's or 40's.
Originally Posted By Marove OH yeah.. that's right.. I was looking through my old encyclopedia of Disney animated characters (from 1992) and I found an article about Chicken Little. I guess Disney produced a cartoon about Chicken Little back in the 30s/40s. I don't remember it, but I did read that Chicken Little was male. But I'm not sure.. both the story of Henny Penny and Chicken Little are very similar, more similar than even Sleeping Beauty to Snow White or The Frog Prince to Beauty and the Beast.
Originally Posted By KachinaBear I had a college professor who insisted "The Lion King" was based (loosely) on Shakespeare's Hamlet. My brother-in-law insists it's just a re-telling of Bambi.
Originally Posted By DlandDug There are elements of Hamlet in Disney's Lion King. Hamlet is a story that is drawn from many sources, and in turn has been used by others. There is scant resemblance between Disney's Lion King and Kimba, the White Lion, which was an American dubbed version of the Japanese TV series Jungle Tatei. Because the characters are named Simba and Kimba, and there is a scene in which each sees his dead father in the sky, some have claimed that Disney stole the plot for The Lion King. The proof, however, is in looking at the overall themes and characterisations in each. -- The lead character in the Japanese production is named Leo; Disney named their lead character Simba, which simply means Lion. (The American distributors of Jungle Tatei renamed the character Kimba.) Leo/Kimba is a distinctive white lion; Simba is not physically unique in any way. -- Simba is raised by his father, Mufassa, and is taught about his destiny before his father's untimely death in a wildebeest stampede. Leo/Kimba's father is killed by hunters before he is born, and his mother is captured and taken to the London Zoo. -- The Lion King exists in a world untouched by any human. Jungle Tatei's Leo is born in the world of humans, interacts with them regularly, learns to communicate with them, and after returning to Africa attempts to bring humans and animals together in harmony. -- Jungle Tatei is anachronistically set in a jungle. The Lion King is properly set in the Pridelands, a grassy area more closely resembling the environment in which lions are found. -- Simba does spend some time in the jungle, but only to flee responsiblity with happy-go-lucky Pumbaa and Timon. Leo/Kimba travels to the jungle in order to take on the responsibility of bringing harmony among the animals and humans. There are no characters analagous to Pumbaa and Timon in Jungle Tatei. -- Simba's Uncle Scar is presented as a rival throughout The Lion King. An evil lion, Bubu, appeared in Jungle Tatei, but was one of many antagonists. -- Leo/Kimba's many friends included Koko the parrot, Tommy the Thomson's gazelle and Mandy the Mandrill (named Dan'l Baboon in Kimba the White Lion). Simba's friends are Nala the lioness, Zazu the Secretary Bird, and Raffikki the baboon.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Now you're catching on, basil fan, duckling. Those nasty nerds at Disney--who were in charge of CHICKEN LITTLE--decided to throw out Henny Penny altogether when they did there own version of the story. And that's what we're complaining about. Why bother doing a version of a story that gives the main character a sex change, a new time period--while stealing some of the character names from the original story. It's sort of like plagerism, if you ask us. If your movie is going to be THAT different from what it's supposed to be based on, why not just go all the way and give it an original title so as not to mislead the public? We wanted to see a movie about CHICKEN LITTLE--not CHICKEN NUGGETS!!
