DVDizzy.com

Home | Reviews | Schedule | Cover Art | Search The Site
DVDizzy.com Top Stories:

It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:56 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:03 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 836
DisneyFan09 wrote:
I always thought it was odd that they didn't try and label all the 90s girls as princesses in the movies.

I thought it was a breath of fresh air, hahahaha. I did in fact like Princesses and such as a kid, but I did find it satisfying that Disney didn't try to make every Disney heroine an actual Princess. Mainly because of the monotony of sticking to the mold. Certainly since I was a younger teen in the late nineties, I certainly appreciated it.[/quote]

I'm glad about that too. I wish Disney would be more like that considering how many princesses we've gotten in a row currently. Tiana, Rapunzel, Vanellope, Merida, Elsa, Anna, etc. It's worse because characters like Rapunzel and Anna were never princesses in their respective source materials (well for Rapunzel at least until she married a prince). This also points more evidence towards how the Renaissance films were not as homogeneous as people claim them to be.

DisneyFan09 wrote:
Quote:
They didn't bother calling Pocahontas a princess until her sequel, although I know in promotion for the first film, she was always referred to as Disney's newest or most independent princess yet, as well as an Indian princess.

Really?

Yeah, in the second film Pocahontas refers to herself as a princess when she is in King James' court for the second time near the end of the film. I think she is probably referred to as a princess a few times before that too by the English. That's certainly how it worked in real life. In promotion though for the original film, the word princess was thrown around a few times, especially to remark on how Pocahontas was following in the footsteps of past princesses like Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine.

DisneyFan09 wrote:
Quote:
Even Esmeralda in past Hunchback film adaptations was sometimes brought to a noble event by Phoebus and introduced as a Princess of the Gyptians. Not to mention, she was often made the adopted daughter of Clopin, King of the Gypsies, so it's strange that they didn't try and push that role for Esmeralda in the movie. Maybe they would have, if the film had been based on her rather than Quasimodo. And as you pointed out, Megara was an actual princess in mythology and even concept art shows her with what looks like a tiara/headdress in one image. I think they were afraid that with Hercules' many similarities to Aladdin already, making Megara a reluctant princess whose hand is offered to Hercules for saving Thebes from the many monsters plaguing it, would make her too much like Jasmine.

The thing with Meg is that they made her too much of an anti-Princess; A snarky, cynical babe from screwball comedies. And she was a part of the modern, Americanized version with shortening her name to Meg.

Yeah, I don't think the princess angle would have worked in the film considering how far it departed from the source material. The nicknames of Meg and Herc certainly added to that.

DisneyFan09 wrote:
Quote:
I know Swan Lake was a potential project for Musker and Clements after The Little Mermaid and Aladdin, but they choose Hercules instead because they wanted to make a comic book style film which was the closest to their dream project of Treasure Planet. I don't know the exact timeline of when Richard Rich left Disney, but it's possible that this spurred him on to make the film himself. I don't think The Swan Princess film (nor its sequels) have the same quality as Disney's films (and Anastasia) but I was a big fan of the series when I was younger so I would have liked for Odette to be a Disney Princess back then. Now, I'd much rather Disney make a Swan Lake film with the original ballet music like they did with Sleeping Beauty and like how Barbie made their Swan Lake film.

I actually happen to like The Swan Princess even more as an adult and I actually consider it to be as good as Disney's best. And yes, I even prefer it to Anastasia, but I've ranted about this many times priorly. Swan Princess appeals to me just more and though it's far from perfect, I find the movie more compelling as a whole than Anastasia.

I find some of the songs in Swan Princess really good, but a few others are just mediocre. The character designs are never horrible either, but they range from excellent to just decent. I really like Odette's design as well as the animals. Derek's hairdo was never something I liked and I found Rothbart's look to be overall forgettable. King William was also generic unlike Queen Uberta and Rogers. The animation was just fine for a non-Disney feature, but I found it to not be up to par with the films Disney had been releasing at the time. The opening especially gets to me where baby Odette is literally thrust into King William's arms as if she was born by immaculate conception and didn't require a mother. On top of that, she looks anything like a baby. Thumbelina, which came out around the same time, I thought had much better animation and more of that old classic storybook style. I also didn't like the plotholes in Swan Princess, but then again, Disney films tend to usually have more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 6:55 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 2407
JeanGreyForever wrote:
I'm glad about that too. I wish Disney would be more like that considering how many princesses we've gotten in a row currently. Tiana, Rapunzel, Vanellope, Merida, Elsa, Anna, etc. It's worse because characters like Rapunzel and Anna were never princesses in their respective source materials (well for Rapunzel at least until she married a prince). This also points more evidence towards how the Renaissance films were not as homogeneous as people claim them to be

At least Rapunzel's royal title is justified of her genre and her wedding a Prince. Yet personally I don't thunk Vanellope should've been put in the same category. Her royal title seems even more contrived than her peers, since her premise didn't call for it.

Quote:
Yeah, in the second film Pocahontas refers to herself as a princess when she is in King James' court for the second time near the end of the film. I think she is probably referred to as a princess a few times before that too by the English. That's certainly how it worked in real life. In promotion though for the original film, the word princess was thrown around a few times, especially to remark on how Pocahontas was following in the footsteps of past princesses like Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine.

I was talking about the promotion, since I'm fully aware of how she's promoted in the much beloved sequel ;)

Quote:
I also didn't like the plotholes in Swan Princess, but then again, Disney films tend to usually have more.

Regardless of my aforementioned praise, I agree that the story did have a couple of gaps, in fact quite of few of them (as Odette never really getting to know what happened to her father and not even grieve and her yearning for Derek seems to overshadow her missing of the father). Yet I can't help liking it :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 836
DisneyFan09 wrote:
JeanGreyForever wrote:
I'm glad about that too. I wish Disney would be more like that considering how many princesses we've gotten in a row currently. Tiana, Rapunzel, Vanellope, Merida, Elsa, Anna, etc. It's worse because characters like Rapunzel and Anna were never princesses in their respective source materials (well for Rapunzel at least until she married a prince). This also points more evidence towards how the Renaissance films were not as homogeneous as people claim them to be

At least Rapunzel's royal title is justified of her genre and her wedding a Prince. Yet personally I don't thunk Vanellope should've been put in the same category. Her royal title seems even more contrived than her peers, since her premise didn't call for it.

Quote:
Yeah, in the second film Pocahontas refers to herself as a princess when she is in King James' court for the second time near the end of the film. I think she is probably referred to as a princess a few times before that too by the English. That's certainly how it worked in real life. In promotion though for the original film, the word princess was thrown around a few times, especially to remark on how Pocahontas was following in the footsteps of past princesses like Ariel, Belle, and Jasmine.

I was talking about the promotion, since I'm fully aware of how she's promoted in the much beloved sequel ;)

Quote:
I also didn't like the plotholes in Swan Princess, but then again, Disney films tend to usually have more.

Regardless of my aforementioned praise, I agree that the story did have a couple of gaps, in fact quite of few of them (as Odette never really getting to know what happened to her father and not even grieve and her yearning for Derek seems to overshadow her missing of the father). Yet I can't help liking it :roll:


I meant more that Rapunzel was changed to be a princess by birth rather than marriage. Likewise, Gerda becomes Anna, a princess. Which funnily enough, I was reading the early Frozen/Snow Queen thread, and people were already predicting that Disney would change Gerda's name because it isn't westernized enough and make her a princess. But the Rapunzel change doesn't bother me too much because Barbie did the same thing years before (another way Tangled copied the Barbie version).

Oh got it.

I never even thought of Odette not realizing something happened to her father. I think I was always more curious about why she goes from breaking up her engagement to Derek to deciding she loves him and hopes he'll come for her to break the spell.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:16 pm 
Offline
Special Edition

Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 3:13 pm
Posts: 441
Location: ICELAND
I'm not sure, how to feel, but it should depends for me what Disney's intentions are, regarding them buying 20th Century Fox. If they are just buying for the sake of it then they are clearly doing it for wrong reason. But if its to get those valuable distribution rights too original Star Wars , and because of those Marvel rights that lies with Fox then I can see why they would want to do it and I for one would welcome such a move. IF that was Disney's starting point then I don't fault them if Murdoch is trying to convince them insteed to just buy the entry entertainment arm of Fox since Murdoch wants out of the Entertainment business. And even if Disney boy 20th Century Fox's entertainment arm they can always resell if they don't want to keep it. But doubt its off until deal is struck or Iger leaves before its struck.

_________________
Der Fuehrer's Face is the greatest Donald Duck cartoon ever made.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 7:38 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:28 pm
Posts: 2407
JeanGreyForever wrote:
I meant more that Rapunzel was changed to be a princess by birth rather than marriage. Likewise, Gerda becomes Anna, a princess. Which funnily enough, I was reading the early Frozen/Snow Queen thread, and people were already predicting that Disney would change Gerda's name because it isn't westernized enough and make her a princess. But the Rapunzel change doesn't bother me too much because Barbie did the same thing years before (another way Tangled copied the Barbie version)

I know what you meant.

Quote:
I never even thought of Odette not realizing something happened to her father. I think I was always more curious about why she goes from breaking up her engagement to Derek to deciding she loves him and hopes he'll come for her to break the spell.

That's what I was talking about as well. Her yearning for him is contrived, as is in fact their romance. We could always assume that they did in fact have a sort of affection for each other deep down, yet their romance was contrived.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 07, 2017 8:59 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4269
Location: Down the street from Disney
DisneyFan09 wrote:
Hahahahaha! :D Funny :P I remember when I first heard about Anastasia, a friend of mine (who usually was always ahead of me with Disney's upcoming movies, since she had Internet at the time) told me that it was going to be Disney's next feature. So my thoughts were of course to Cinderella's stepsister, but at the time I didn't knew that the name was Russian. Of course that same friend told me afterwards that it was Don Bluth and 20th Century Fox who were behind it, but since Anastasia were one of the Disney clones, it's not strange that it was mistaken for a Disney feature, which James Berardinelli cites in his review for the film; http://www.reelviews.net/reelviews/anastasia). Even the big sister of a friend of mine were surprised when I told her that it wasn't Disney.

I remember being at the mall and seeing the HUGE Anastasia display at a Waldenbooks. This couple passed by and the guy complained with something like, "Disney's really going overboard with this whole Anastasia thing." I wanted to correct him, but didn't bother. :lol: It's interesting to reflect on now though, as at the time you never saw so much merchandise generated for a non-Disney animated film (that certainly changed once Shrek came out a few years later)! I do think it's pretty understandable that most people of the time would mistake it for Disney; Bluth left Disney after all in order to create films that were more, eh ... Disney.

This is a story I've told my animation fan friends many times now. I imagine it gets better every time I tell it! :p :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 10265
Negotiations are not completely over yet.

Fox shares jump as 'pencils aren't down' on possible Disney deal
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/10/pencils ... -deal.html

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:38 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:29 pm
Posts: 836
Glad to hear that. Especially since even when talks were down, Fox was still wanting to sell some of its shares and properties. I can't imagine Disney would be too fond of yet another company owning Star Wars, Avatar, the X-Men, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:48 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:58 pm
Posts: 40
I dunno, I really don't want to see the Simpsons and Family Guy under Disney. They just won't fit. I hope they settle for 77 Star Wars (the only SW Fox outright owns) and X-Men. But that's probably naïve of me since Disney may wants more material for their new streaming service.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 3:56 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 10265
^I get where you're coming from. A lot of popular Fox franchises don't mesh with the Disney brand. Perhaps a way around this is would be for Disney to sell some of the properties that don't fit, after the acquisition.

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:25 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2013 8:58 pm
Posts: 40
But then again, if Fox sells to another company, wouldn't the movie rights to X-Men and FF revert back to Disney?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 7:48 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:27 pm
Posts: 2394
I hope if Disney does buy 20th Century Fox, it's just for their large library. I want Fox to remain unchanged as a studio and distributor under Disney. They're doing decently enough and shouldn't be turned into Disney 2.0, with merely an emphasis on franchises and tentpoles.

I don't want Disney to own Fox. The idea of them becoming this large monopoly in the entertainment business is scary enough and I would also like the six major studios to remain separate. I also don't want Disney to mess with my beloved Blue Sky Studios. Competition is good for the industry. Are we really headed to a future where the only major studios are Disney, Universal and Sony? Not something I would like to see.

_________________
"If your life had a face, I would punch it." - Kim Pine, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:47 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 3543
Location: Maryland, USA
Thank God it's back on! I'm dying for Disney to own Anastasia! I'd love her to be a Disney Princess!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:23 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:28 am
Posts: 2752
Location: Any Disney park you choose
estefan wrote:
I hope if Disney does buy 20th Century Fox, it's just for their large library. I want Fox to remain unchanged as a studio and distributor under Disney. They're doing decently enough and shouldn't be turned into Disney 2.0, with merely an emphasis on franchises and tentpoles.

I don't want Disney to own Fox. The idea of them becoming this large monopoly in the entertainment business is scary enough and I would also like the six major studios to remain separate. I also don't want Disney to mess with my beloved Blue Sky Studios. Competition is good for the industry. Are we really headed to a future where the only major studios are Disney, Universal and Sony? Not something I would like to see.


Me neither.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:04 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure

Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 2293
As long as Disney and Fox finally get to share the Star Wars pie under one roof, I say make this happen. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:39 am 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 4:44 pm
Posts: 2454
Location: Sarajevo, B&H Gender: Male
Yes to properties that would complement Disney brands, such as:
- Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope
- X-Men / Fantastic Four
- Anastasia / Bartok the Magnificent, Titan A.E., Thumbelina (?), Pagemaster, Ferngully 1 & 2, Once Upon a Forest
- Avatar and Titanic
- Planet of the Apes
- Rodgers and Hammerstein's musicals
- family movies like Mrs. Doubtfire, Home Alone, Big, Princess Bride

No to everything else.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:01 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 12:26 pm
Posts: 9293
Location: North Carolina Gender: Male
I forgot about FernGully. But unlike others, I'm not really excited about Disney having their mitts on a favorite property of mine....

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:11 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 5:59 pm
Posts: 3745
Location: S.H.I.E.L.D. Headquarters
estefan wrote:
I hope if Disney does buy 20th Century Fox, it's just for their large library. I want Fox to remain unchanged as a studio and distributor under Disney. They're doing decently enough and shouldn't be turned into Disney 2.0, with merely an emphasis on franchises and tentpoles.


This is what would most likely happen if the deal were to go through. The only exceptions would be to properties already associated with Disney (Star Wars, Marvel & Avatar). Disney would benefit from having a larger library of titles to sell through digital and streaming as well as new tentpole potentials and merchandising rights. "Fox" and "Disney" would likely remain seperate brands for marketing purposes.

The bigger issue, as you suggest, is having so much studio output controlled by one company, although I don't see the US government stepping in to stop this or similar mergers from happening.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:11 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 7:00 pm
Posts: 1295
I haven't even thought of how this would affect Blue Sky...would they close it down(poor animators!) would they use them to start making more sequels? (dtvs again? uh oh!) would they just let them keep doing their own thing and release the films during the periods they dont release Disney/Pixar films on the more prime release dates like May and November? Disney would be responsible for almost half the major animated films released in the US. Yikes! :|

_________________
Support To Belong
Hullabaloo


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:14 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:34 am
Posts: 2632
Has anyone here read the recent story about the terms Disney is setting with movie theaters that want to show the next Star Wars coming out? If not, you REALLY should know about it. It's been the industry stand for a while now that on opening weekend, the studio gets 55% of the box office from their film and the theater gets 45%. As each week passes from opening weekend, theaters get to keep more and more of the money made, however as the bulk of the money made from a film is that first weekend, it's not very much money that the theater gets to keep. Further, usually after about two weeks, the theater has the right to dump a movie and show a different film instead, or move a movie from their biggest and best screen to a smaller one, and thus show a new movie and hopefully make more money off that. By the way, the biggest reason movie theaters charge so much for snacks is that they get to keep most of the money made from that as opposed to the actual movies. It's actually a pain financially to keep a movie theater open as a business owner. The big chains do a little better, but those single independent theaters really get hammered. And actually, even the big chains can suffer. Just ask MANN theaters about that.

Now here comes Disney, deciding that they want move of the money! So, they have new terms for theaters that wish to show The Last Jedi. Basically, Disney gets to keep 65% of the opening weekend money (a full extra 10%) and the theaters that show the film have to screen it on their biggest screen for a full four weeks. If Disney finds out the theaters break the terms, they get to keep 70% of the money made on the box office at that theater for the film! A number of smaller chains or independent theaters are choosing to not show the film, even though it may cost them customers and some money, as Disney's terms would cost them even more money.

https://www.marketplace.org/2017/11/07/world/disney-s-star-wars-terms-financial-burden-small-theaters

If Disney has the power to demand these terms with PIXAR, Marvel and LucasFilm under their belt, can you imagine the chaos they'd create with the Fox film rights too? And that's not even getting into the situations with TV and cable. Besides the obvious of the FOX network or FX, Fox owns a 30% stake in Hulu and National Geographic, for starters. All of that is on the table for Disney, who already owns a ton of cable networks themselves! And yet all any of you are worried about is will Anastasia get to be a Disney princess? Or, will the X-Men finally enter the MCU? Or can Disney get the home entertainment rights to the first six Star Wars films. Shame on all of you! The next time you look at the high price of cable or your movie tickets, you literally have no one else to blame but yourselves! Disney only get to get away with this crap becuase so many "fans" let them, and even full on support them without understanding the full implications at play. I can't stress enough, Disney buying Fox is great for the Disney board of directors, bad for the rest of us. One would think that Disney could negotiate the sale of specific Marvel and Star Wars rights without taking the whole barn!

_________________
____________________________________________________________
All the adversity I've had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me... You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.

-Walt Disney


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group