Disney Duster:
Disney Duster wrote:I disagree with all of this so far. Generally, everything you say about my posts, I think the opposite.
Disney Duster wrote:I completely disagree.
Disney Duster wrote:I disagree and generally think the opposite of most of this stuff as well.
STOP REPEATING YOURSELF
Not only is it offensive to the sensibilities of the people on this forum, but it's bad posting conduct. This is a
public forum where things only need to be said once, not three times over and over again. Why? Because once you say something once, it stays, and that's pretty much the internet. Repeating yourself is unnecessary and foolish, no matter if your opinion is well thought out or not. If you have a single thing to say to my series of paragraphs, without actually defending yourself, then quote each one of them and say, "I disagree" like I'm doing right now in response.
Disney Duster wrote:I think that there is a Disney style and a Disney essence that lives on in some movies and other things the company makes after Walt and that they mist try to keep. I believe in it. If there is no Disney essence, i.e. what Disney is, then there is no reason for the company to live on carrying the Disney name, and no reason for any of us to be here unless this was all just about the old Walt Disney movies they keep re-releasing.
The Disney name is a brand, not a honorable deity. At most, there is a "Disney style" in the sense where Disney was the first to do high budget animated feature films. You know why he wanted to do it?
He wanted animation to be a respective artform. He didn't want a specific series of traits to define every movie, and it's quite clear if you watch films like
Snow White, Fantasia, Pinocchio, Bambi, and Peter Pan side-by-side, that none of these films have anything in common other than the people that worked on them, and have humor and darker themes that far eclipse what most of Disney is doing today.
The only reason why they were kept "family oriented" was because of the crowd the films appealed to.
Fantasia was very much an art film that Walt tried to prove, after the high success of Snow White, that animation could be an artform and isn't just for kids (hence all of the violence, nudity, Satan himself, just gritty sh*t), but the movie bombed at the Box Office, and at most was successful in it's 70's re-release to stoners and nostalgic Disney fans.
The point is that Disney wouldn't have wanted Disney to keep churning out children's features, but he wanted them to work outside of the box. Disney would've wanted to see stuff like
Lilo and Stitch, The Fox and the Hound, and Tangled or even GRITTIER movies. I honestly believe that if Disney was alive today, then Disney might have a more mature image to them. Disney would support CG animation highly, support anime, and other non-Disney styles, cause he was interested in expanding Disney's range of talent; he wasn't interested in sticking to traditional animation, as the switch to new technology AND a new style in
101 Dalmations showed, Disney wanted to end that era with
Sleeping Beauty.
Basically what you're requesting is very un-Disneylike. Disney "essence" is just a marketing ploy and you've fallen for it, misunderstanding and misinforming what Walt Disney would've wanted. There is no Disney essence, and the only reason why they've kept the name is because of how recognized the brand is.
Disney Duster wrote:Those movies you mentioned are not the only similar ones. All Disney Animated Features have similar messages of innocence, goodness, good winning over evil, belief, and themes of fantasy. Every single Disney Animated Feature features fantasy from either magic or talking animals, but often have both. Magic is in the first four films Walt made (don't forget Dumbo's feather and flying), and Bambi is a prince of the forest, it's all fairy tale like. This continues similarly to the other films. Their imagery is also generally more beautiful and fantasy-like than normal life or like other studios' work.
This is a false misconception. Those aspects aren't exclusive to Disney, nor is beautiful imagery. Disney didn't invent anything new, just put it all into an animated feature. The concept was to bring a painting to life, and Disney was successful at that, making big-budget animation more popular than ever. In that sense, everything is "Disney essence" according to your definition.
Everything.
Disney Duster wrote:I do agree that the Renaissance films feel different from the classic classic Disney, but I still feel that the Renaissance films have become classic and that the Disney essence is kept in them as much as it needs to be.
So it's because they're old, that they're classic?
Listen son, they were called
CLASSIC when they were first released to theater. It wasn't because they were Disney in style, but because it revived the Disney brand from the dead with something new and still being of high quality. This is what Tangled effectively did recently, being a HUGE hit both critically and financially.
In the next few years when people remember it as a "classic" will you suddenly change a face with the stream of quality movies that come after it? Does movies aging
really effect your opinion? If so you're blinded by unnecessary and illogical nostalgia.
I'll give you
FIVE more years till you age to 18 years old, and I'll have this discussion with you. This'll be when you grow up and not let nostalgia cloud your judgment, and have a sharper opinion on things. Till that time, let's keep nostalgia out of this argument, as that is not your strongest asset clearly.
Disney Duster wrote:Things like The Hunchback of Notre Dame "destroying" a classic are actually keeping the Disney tradition of family-friendlyness and happy endings.
And apparently Tangled isn't family-friendly nor does it have a happy ending.
Nor does it have humor in the style of old Disney...
oh wait, it does.
Disney Duster wrote:That is not a fact. The fact is that in those movies you mentioned the backgrounds of main/major characters were not changed like in Tangled. For example there is a huge difference between a merchant who sells things becoming an inventore who sells things and a prince who becomes a thief. If you cannot see the big difference, that is your inability, which others may share, but alas.
There's also these differences with every Disney film, especially
The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Hunchback of Notre Dame, Jungle Book, Hercules, Mulan, Tarzan and Alice in Wonderland are all very worse adaptations of their source material. Saying they have the "Disney essence" isn't an excuse because you have yet to explain what the "Disney essence" actually is or what it should or should not entail, when I've already proved that there is no consistency when it came to the classic Disney movies.
Disney Duster wrote:The humor (and everything) was more cutting and cynical and ironic and fast in Tangled than in the past.
NO
This is a lie. Mind providing specific examples so I can provide examples that compare to them?
Disney Duster wrote:I already did that in the past, sometimes I stumbled upon my own posts and started reading them without knowing they were by me, in the search function, and I found myself going “I agree wit this person, so much, he speaks about what I always thought!” and then realized it was me. Ther were times when, I thought “this guy is too angry” or “this guy isn’t explaining himself well”, and I find that I do get so angered by what Disney's doing these days and also that it is hard for me to explain myself well all the time. However, since the posts you are addressing are recent, I do know there is nothing I want to change and as of now at least, that I can explain any better. I feel I have explained things well enough to get the points I really want to. All I need now is for people to actually get it, but if they don't get it, once again I will chuck it up to overlooking, not caring/wanting to, or inability.
Now this is getting comical...
Disney Duster wrote:Also, similar things you said to me, I thought of of you as I was reading your post. You are not explaining youself, you have no facts, you are making stuff up, you aren’t backing yourself up, and it's still all your opinion. Actually, that's not what I would normally have thought, normally I would have thought "It's possible he's thinking of instances in his head where this is true", but after what you said to me, that's not what went through my head.
Disney Duster, stop sounding like you've just put a series of words through Google Translator.
Get some better grammar, I seriously cannot understand a word you're saying sometimes.
Disney's Divinity:
Disney's Divinity wrote:I know this is just your personal reaction to the movie, but I don't really see that with Tangled. I mean, I noticed a semi-realistic touch to the background characters--something about the drab colors gave that effect to me--but I don't think there's ever any real fear of these characters by the audience. I mean, for one, most people know what to expect from a Disney film. But, at the same time, we're only presented with this fear by Gothel, who is clearly a villain from the get-go, so noone will take her attempts to scare Rapunzel seriously (which is why they're used more for comedic effect in "MKB").
I disagree, there was nothing comical about Gothel. She was actually likable, but not comical. The "creepy" factor is that you actually find her relationship with Rapunzel heartwarming in a lot of ways, unlike with Frollo or Lady Tremaine where it's established at the very start that they have a horribly dominating relationship with their adopted.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Oh, and about the fire scene you mentioned, and I've said this before, but that scene is total copy-and-paste from TP&TF. I mean, whether or not you agree if Tangled did it better (I don't, personally), there's no denying it plays on the same plot device. A couple at odds with one another sit and get to know one another by the fire, and realize there's more than meets the eye.
Yeah it was done in Princess and the Frog, but it was done in a lot of other movies too. The difference is that in Princess and the Frog they were frogs, and in Tangled they were full-fledged people. Though I do think Princess and the Frog has a very good relationship between the two central characters, the relationship itself is flawed cause Naveen in particular has absolutely no likable qualities to both the viewer and the Tiana enough for her to fall in love with him. With Rapunzel, Flynn was her very first exposure to the real world, and Flynn is just in it for the pussy ultimately. It makes sense, a naive princess and a worldly thief.