Wreck-It Ralph (formerly Reboot Ralph)

[Disney Duster]

I can't see the video, Luke.

Anyway, I know you probably all know I'm gonna say this, but I gotta anyway...

The recent developments feel really un-Disney to me. Hiring the guy who made The Simpson and Futurama, both shows which, while they can be emotional, are far more irreverent, different, and against the things Disney stands for, is just plain going against Disney. And then hiring Sarah Silverman, who makes some of the most foul-mouthed dirty comedy, as one of the Disney characters, is just not good.

It doesn't matter if by some miracle they actually do produce a film or a character that we think is good work and okay to be in a Disney film. It's the principle of the thing, that it goes against what Disney has been about for always.

Honestly, why any of these people, like they couldn't find perfectly good other people, especially someone already within the company who wants to direct the film? Of course they could find other people like that!

I'm also rather dissapointed that this is going from the original story of a hero who goes into another, different world to a villain who's trying not to be a villain. The idea of a good hero facing challenges in a whole nother world is a very Disney idea, found in so many of their films. But the villain thing is not, and you cannot really say it's Disney "being original" because as has been pointed out it's been done before. And they changes the story to make it that way, it wasn't that way from the beginning of the film's idea! So really, the should stick to, you all know it by now - being more Disney.

[DisneyAnimation88]

Well thankfully those in charge at Disney don't share your narrow-mindedness and are willing to take on new and original projects. As Walt said:

"Around here, however, we don't look backwards for very long.We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things, because we're curious.....And curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."

Now I know you're probably going to say that Walt meant something else and stuff about the "essence" but to me, the quote pretty much speaks for itself and the people at Disney animation now are following that mantra set by the man himself.

[Disney Duster]

Well thankfully those in charge at Disney don't share your narrow-mindedness and are willing to take on new and original projects. As Walt said:

"Around here, however, we don't look backwards for very long.We keep moving forward, opening up new doors and doing new things, because we're curious.....And curiosity keeps leading us down new paths."

Now I know you're probably going to say that Walt meant something else and stuff about the "essence" but to me, the quote pretty much speaks for itself and the people at Disney animation now are following that mantra set by the man himself.

First: narrow-minded? I am not completely saying no to the video game, I am not completely utterly saying the whole thing is bad, just these new developments right now. Other people have said it sounds un-Disney as well!

As for that quote, it's a quote, so we can take it certain ways, I guess. One way I take it is to do new things but do them with the Disne essence, to do new technology and techniques but on the familiar subjects and rules like "good over evil" and such. But there is something we can't take by certain ways. There is something that is a fact. And the fact is that even though Walt said that, he also repeated a lot of the same subjects and things. So many of his films have so many similarities. To ignore that is to, well, to ignore it and just do whatever. Why would you ignore Disney, ignore Disney's past, and yet make things at Disney? That makes no sense.

[DisneyAnimation88]

And the fact is that even though Walt said that, he also repeated a lot of the same subjects and things. So many of his films have so many similarities. To ignore that is to, well, to ignore it and just do whatever. Why would you ignore Disney, ignore Disney's past, and yet make things at Disney? That makes no sense.

When have I ignored Disney's past? No one is ignoring Disney's past but you just seem to be clinging to it. The quote speaks for itself, "we don't look backwards" and "we keep moving forward and doing new things". I knew you would add something about "essence" to it but Disney animation today is following that idea that came directly from Walt himseld.

First: narrow-minded? I am not completely saying no to the video game, I am not completely utterly saying the whole thing is bad, just these new developments right now. Other people have said it sounds un-Disney as well!

But no one I've seen on this forum has written the film off as "un-Disney". Here's an idea, why not wait until you actually see the film before making such a judgement?

Anyway, I'm not going to derail another thread with endless and pointless debate about "essence" when we all know how it will end. All I'm saying is perhaps you might enjoy the things Disney will do in the future if you stop believing that you know what the company should and shouldn't be doing when, quite honestly, you don't.

[Heartless]

As for that quote, it's a quote, so we can take it certain ways, I guess. One way I take it is to do new things but do them with the Disne essence, to do new technology and techniques but on the familiar subjects and rules like "good over evil" and such.

First of all, how can you say a QUOTE, something Walt Disney actually said and that there is concrete proof of, can be taken and interpreted in different ways.. Yet you claim to know what Walt Disney wanted and thought, something that is very subjective and could NEVER be determined.

Secondly, how in the world do you get that interpretation from that quote. Nothing gathered directly from the quote could have possibly brought you to that interpretation. You just made that up based on previous opinions you have on the subject.

But there is something we can't take by certain ways. There is something that is a fact. And the fact is that even though Walt said that, he also repeated a lot of the same subjects and things. So many of his films have so many similarities. To ignore that is to, well, to ignore it and just do whatever. Why would you ignore Disney, ignore Disney's past, and yet make things at Disney? That makes no sense.

Just because the Disney films today aren't just like how they were in 'the past,' does not mean the people at Disney aren't still getting inspiration and using similar values from the films of their past. You continue to tell the members here "How do you know what I REALLY think!!".. but who are you to say what exactly the people at Disney are thinking?

[Goliath]

It doesn't matter if by some miracle they actually do produce a film or a character that we think is good work and okay to be in a Disney film.

Finally! I thought you would never admit you really don't care about the actual output of Disney, but you actually just did it! You don't care about the product Disney makes, you only care about non-existing "principles" that only exist in your head. I'm glad we finally have that on record so we can stop wasting our time debating you!

[Sotiris]

I spent a good part of the afternoon at the Disney Company's hat building, where there's more production happening. Wreck-It Ralph is well underway, with 100 staffers (if my informants have their numbers right) now working on the picture. A Chris Buck feature and King of the Elves are also moving briskly along.

Source: http://animationguildblog.blogspot.com/ ... t-diz.html

[Disney Duster]

When have I ignored Disney's past? No one is ignoring Disney's past but you just seem to be clinging to it. The quote speaks for itself, "we don't look backwards" and "we keep moving forward and doing new things". I knew you would add something about "essence" to it but Disney animation today is following that idea that came directly from Walt himself.

Yes, Walt said that. But what did Walt also do? In his animated films? He did a lot of the same things. If they look at the similarities, that may show them the Disney essence, and make something new with that, that is following both Walt's quote and what he did. You see, it's using both, instead of ignoring one or the other.

As for that quote, it's a quote, so we can take it certain ways, I guess. One way I take it is to do new things but do them with the Disne essence, to do new technology and techniques but on the familiar subjects and rules like "good over evil" and such.

First of all, how can you say a QUOTE, something Walt Disney actually said and that there is concrete proof of, can be taken and interpreted in different ways...
Secondly, how in the world do you get that interpretation from that quote. Nothing gathered directly from the quote could have possibly brought you to that interpretation. You just made that up based on previous opinions you have on the subject.

I'm pretty sure you're just saying this to try and say something to combat me, but if not... any quote anyone says can be interpreted any way, if you do not understand that, that is just something that you unfortunately don't understand, even though you should by now.

Second, his quote is about moving forward, but this quote was taken out of context. How do I know that Walt was talking about movies. How do I know he was not talking about moving forward in a toilet paper company? Because I know who Walt is and I know his work. So I had to think about Walt and his work...and combining that with his quote...it says to me that he wants to move forward within the kind of work he did, in other words move forward but with the Disney essence, and the Disney essence can be found which can be found in examples from the past. One example I would say is Sleeping Beauty, an old Disney essence subject of a fairy tale, but with a new style to it. So no, I was not making up whatever as you said.

Just because the Disney films today aren't just like how they were in 'the past,' does not mean the people at Disney aren't still getting inspiration and using similar values from the films of their past. You continue to tell the members here "How do you know what I REALLY think!!".. but who are you to say what exactly the people at Disney are thinking?

It's not about that. It's that even if they say they are looking at Disney past films at Disney, what we see they are actually doing seems to be un-Disney like hiring Simpsons writers, where did they get that from a past Disney movie? You see, I don't have to know what they're thinking, I can see it's wrong.

Goliath, no, wrong again, I do care what Disney does, what I was saying was that before even considering that they may make make something good, they shouldn't be hired because of the kind of things they made and people they are, things that go against Disney.

[estefan]

I don't feel like debating the rest, but in defence of the Sarah Silverman casting, have you seen Robin Williams' stand-up routines? Very dirty material. Do you have any issues with him voicing the Genie in Aladdin? How about Gilbert Godfried? Not exactly a family-friendly comedian, either.

[Disney Duster]

Didn't they get that way after they already made the films, and aren't their comedy not as bad as Sarah Silverman's, I don't think it is.

[Super Aurora]

Didn't they get that way after they already made the films, and aren't their comedy not as bad as Sarah Silverman's, I don't think it is.

Ah nope. They were like that even before Aladdin came around.

[estefan]

You can also add Eddie Murphy onto the list of R-rated stand-up comedians who would later voice a Disney character.

In fact, does there even exist a foul-mouthed stand-up comedian who hasn't taken on a role in a family film? All of them do at one point in their careers, even Lewis Black and George Carlin (you know, the man behind the famous "Seven Words You Can't Say on Television" act).

[DisneyAnimation88]

Didn't they get that way after they already made the films, and aren't their comedy not as bad as Sarah Silverman's, I don't think it is.

To be fair, they've hired Sarah Silverman to read from a script, not perform one of her routines.

You can also add Eddie Murphy onto the list of R-rated stand-up comedians who would later voice a Disney character.

And the result was one of the funniest Disney characters to have ever been created, at least that's what I think.

[Disney's Divinity]

I could care less about her comedy acts. I just think Silverman's a bad choice. Williams and Murphy both have over-the-top, expressive voices to go along with their antics. Silverman's always been more monotone.

[ajmrowland]

Disney will never allow for a PG-13 animated feature... I don't think...

I mean, I guess they'd just rely on "Brave" to be their big ticket family movie for 2012 (in terms of animation) - being as "Frankenweenie" is sure to scare a few youngsters.

It's all in the marketing. They'd have to not sound like "we used to be a kiddy company, come see our daring step into adult animation! It's so cool!" It would have to seem like a natural progression, "you've always loved Disney, but maybe you thought you've outgrown it? Think again!"

2012 is shaping up to be a mature year:

1906
John Carter
Frankenweenie
Lone Ranger (?)

None of those scream "bring the kids!"

Well, first off, Kids *like* being scared. It's the grown-ups that dont.

That said, I dont think there's any way they could market a PG13 animated film as being "natural progression" unless they say "look how fun this kids movie is! oh, btw, it's PG13".

1906 is live action and I doubt Lone Ranger is coming out that year.

[Dream Huntress]

Didn't they get that way after they already made the films, and aren't their comedy not as bad as Sarah Silverman's, I don't think it is.

No, they didn't, actually in the special edition of Aladdin, Genie's animator in charge, Eric Goldberg, said that in order to make a work in progress to pitch the project to Robin Williams, he went through various of CDs of Williams' stand ups in order to find the cleanest material to use as dialogue.

You want more examples?:

- Rosie O'Donnell in "Tarzan".
- Bruno Campos in "The Princess and the Frog"
- Danny De Vito in "Hercules"
- Jerry Orbach in "Beauty and the Beast"
- David Spade in "The Emperor's New Groove"
- Andy Dick in "The Lion King 2: Simba's Pride"
- Jason Alexander in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame"

They're actors, they're should be capable to portray different types of characters, and the producers will cast the actors that better suit the characters. You're making such a big deal of this, acting like they hired Ron Jeremy or something. Is frigging Sarah Silverman, who cares?

So what if they hired former writers of The Simpsons? On Bolt they had people from Animaniacs, they hiring them for their abbilities, and believe it or not, actually coming from working from an incredible succesful animated series that has been on air or the past 20 years really counts for something. Pixar has Brad Bird, and before you go and say "Well, is Pixar is not the same", when was the last time that Pixar was affected by that and made a movie that was not aimed at the whole movie.

And by the way, I'm not over the fact that now, because it suits your argument, you consider "parts" of "Lilo & Stitch" to be "Disney", do you have any idea of how many movies you can say the same? Even the ones that aren't even produced by Disney. Pick one side, they're either are or they're not, pick a point and stick to it.

[Disney Duster]

I forgot to say I think the PG-13 rating is a REALLY un-Disney thing. Walt always said he wanted his films to be for everyone!

I'm pretty sure Robin Williams is the least bad of any of the comics they hired. I'm pretty sure that his stand-up is merely "adult", not outright gross or foul.

I also doubt that any Disney people knew of the most dirty things that any comics they hired did. I bet they only knew of the comic's milder stuff. I admit Gilbert Gotfried is more foul than Robin, but he did play a villainous sidekick not a main good guy character.

There's a difference between adult humor and super gross, dirty, and foul. I would say Andy Dick was part of the latter, and thankfully I see he was only in Lion King II, a cheap sequel and we all know the sequels don't get the Disney quality or Disney magic, another reason we shouldn't have them...

If they don't know how bad Sarah Silverman is because they haven't seen all her stuff, I guess I can't do anything about it. But from what I know everywhere she goes she tries to be as shockingly bad as she can be.

Dream Huntress, first, Animaniacs is slightly better, it's not mature or risque, and it's from Spielburg who worked with Disney before. But I must say, Bolt was also far from a good slice of Disney quality.

And I actually had said the things that made Lilo & Stitch un-Disney were simply some things in it, not that the entire thing was all bad. And even if I did change my mind, because I do feel the film isn't as un-Disey as I did before, isn't that what you and everyone here want me to do? That when you don't think I'm right, you want me to change my mind?

[Elladorine]

Dream Huntress, first, Animaniacs is slightly better, it's not mature or risque, and it's from Spielburg who worked with Disney before.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videol ... animaniacs

Goodnight everybody!

[Disney Duster]

What's that, it's still not really mature or risque, like the Simpsons, and like I said, that was for the sub-quality Bolt, not the best in defining what Disney is, and Bolt was done by the same team that un-Disneyfied Rapunzel into Tangled? Oh, yea, we agree, goodnight everybody!

[disneyboy20022]

I saw Robin Williams when he was doing his Weapons of Self Destruction Comedy tour in Saint Louis MO. He for sure has some colorful wording...I actually thought my dad would die of laughing for real when we were at the fox in saint louis and listening to Robin William's Comedy




Also another one I can't believe everyone is forgetting...this comedian

Iago - from Aladdin - Gilbert Gottfried