DVDizzy.com

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

It is currently Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:03 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1391 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:10 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 9:45 pm
Posts: 3749
Location: Florida
Disney changes EVERY story they make. They tone down much of the story to suit children, while keeping a little darkness to not make the story too washed out.

If Disney kept true to the original fairytales, the merchandise would be lacking.

Perhaps making dolls of Ariel made of bath fizzies...so you can throw her into the bathtub and watch her turn into "sea foam"

Or a Pocahontas doll that gets smallpox.

Or A Flynn doll with his eyes gouged out.

Or a Snow White doll with a too-tight corset that when you tighten it all the way, the doll goes limp and the eyes roll in the back of the head.

Toys that the Addams Family would completely adore.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:40 pm 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:52 pm
Posts: 1685
Location: United Kingdom
Disney Duster wrote:
enigmawing wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
Enigmawing, I didn’t say it was a fact Tangled was sh*ting all over Walt’s legacy, I said it was a fact that previous versions of Disney films felt like the real versions of those stories to people.

Disney Duster wrote:
But this time, they broke it, they did something un-Disneyfied but called it Disney, but I'll keep defending the Disney way that's getting s*** upon these days.

*feels confused*

THIS must be used as an example for people not reading what I say the correct way, or more probably, not carefully enough. Here is the sentence with extra emphasis to show you:

"I didn’t say it was a fact Tangled was sh*ting all over Walt’s legacy, I said it was a fact that previous versions of Disney films felt like the real versions of those stories to people."

If you still don't get it, that's you guys.


Goliath wrote:
Duster's complaints are completely arbitrary! (Is that a word in English?) I mean that he only complains about story changes on films that he personally didn't like; and he's okay with story changes on Disney films he does like or which were made by Walt personally (because, as we all know, Walt was infallible, like the Pope). It's personal preference disguised as 'objective' criticism. He then desperatly seeks 'arguments' to support his claims, but they're far-fetched and 'made up'.

Disney Duster, reading your posts makes it look like you're 'afraid' to admit you like a current Disney films; it makes it look like you're 'afraid' to admit you like anything to doesn't fit the "traditional" Disney mold. Why is that a bad thing? Honestly, I would like to know. Why must everything stay exactly the way it was when you were a kid? Why can't you enjoy Rapunzel for what it is?


Ah, here is finally the proof you're wrong about that. I did like some of Tangled. When I was watching it, I was sad and happy at the same time. The title instantly dampened my mood. I felt highs and lows during the whole thing, and it was because of the humour or no Rapunzel plant and Flynn being a thief or Rapunzel being a princess or Mother Gothel not doing what she did in the original. I wanted to like it so badly, but I couldn't. I don't see why Disney had to do this to it's fans and what it is. What's the point of the company name surviving if who they really are dies?

So I'm not doing what you said I'm doing. I can honestly tell you that.


The fact is Walt's dead, I'm not sure if you've noticed :wink: A company cannot be run by a dead man, especially since the world has changed a lot since he died. I'm pretty sure they still stick to his legacy anyway - entertainment for everyone.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
yamiiguy wrote:
I'm pretty sure they still stick to his legacy anyway - entertainment for everyone.

And that's the thing! As passionate as we can get about this it's all just entertainment. I think to most people Disney = family entertainment, hopefully in high quality.

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 5:56 pm 
Offline
Collector's Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 7:22 am
Posts: 963
Location: Buffalo
If there's a Disney Art thread, let me know.

In the meantime, I decided to highlight a Gothel quote to a more sinister effect.

http://th05.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/f/2 ... 38o9hc.png


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:10 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4794
Who the hell is dude in middle?

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:13 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Super Aurora wrote:
Who the hell is dude in middle?

I believe that's Semaj. ;)

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:27 pm 
Offline
Special Edition

Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:06 pm
Posts: 249
190 in USA now and 450 worldwide.
This weekend, Spain and Skandinavia.
500 is happening......... and more, I'm sure.[/b]

_________________
VISITTTTT, SPANISH DISNEY FORUM
http://animacionud.mforos.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:28 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:34 pm
Posts: 4481
Location: The Netherlands
Gothel has quite a rack in those drawings :lol:

Does Rapunzel's hair also do boob jobs? :wink:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:41 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Disney Duster wrote:
I don't see why Disney had to do this to it's fans and what it is. What's the point of the company name surviving if who they really are dies?


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:04 pm 
Offline
Special Edition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 9:37 pm
Posts: 253
Disney's Divinity wrote:
Rapunzel wrote:
What about The Princess and the Frog? That story isn't the same in any way whatsoever from the frog prince fairy tales. Did we get a big argument about this too? The girl in that story was ALWAYS a princess. But Disney made her a regular girl. In America. Who turns into a frog.
Yes. Yes, we did.

Actually, PatF was "based" of a book written by E.D. Baker. By "based" I mean nothing like it besides the idea. The whole book that E.D. Baker wrote was like Shrek all over again. And it was a book that was written in 2002
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/158234 ... ull-site=1

It was SUPPOSED to be based of that book, not the original fairy tale. I even saw a copy at my local bookstore with a label on it that said that the book inspired the idea of Princess and the Frog. Honestly. Read the book description.

(A bit OT. i just wanted to point that out. You know. How PatF wasn't actually supposed to be based off the original fairy tale and that their idea of messing it up was actually based off of something else. I read the book and it was good-just not great.)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:48 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4794
Goliath wrote:
Disney Duster wrote:
I don't see why Disney had to do this to it's fans and what it is. What's the point of the company name surviving if who they really are dies?


Image



Image






I fix it for you.

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:50 pm 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 5:06 am
Posts: 8001
From WDAS official Facebook page:


Image

_________________
ImageImageImageImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:01 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:02 pm
Posts: 4196
Location: one with the wind and sky
Sotiris wrote:
From WDAS official Facebook page:

Nice! :)

_________________
Image Blu-rays! The artist formerly known as enigmawing.
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:20 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:35 pm
Posts: 4749
Location: The Netherlands
Super Aurora wrote:
I fix it for you.

Who's she supposed to be?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:24 pm 
Offline
Walt Disney Treasure
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:59 am
Posts: 4794
Goliath wrote:
Super Aurora wrote:
I fix it for you.

Who's she supposed to be?


Yoko ONO

_________________
<i>Please limit signatures to 100 pixels high and 500 pixels wide</i>
http://i1338.photobucket.com/albums/o68 ... ecf3d2.gif


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:48 am 
Offline
Platinum Edition
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:02 am
Posts: 7069
Location: America
I'm sad because people aren't reading what I'm saying. But I'm also happy because I know that I already explained why I'm right about what I say and the answers to their questions, so them not reading them is just ignoring them.

Patrick, I already explained that the story needed to keep the characters' background to be Disney and they still could have and had the story. The story did not just take place in the tower it also took place in the forest where Rapunzel had to live on her own and she and the Prince had to find each other. They could have put this in the movie and still had the same running time but they didn't. Flynn could have been a prince who showed Rapunzel as a peasant his castle's lanterns and then she returned home to get Mother Gothel's blessing but Mother Gothel kept her locked there and the movie would have been just as long. I didn't need the twins or the eyes getting removed because those parts are not very Disney. And I did not instantly dislike the film because of the title I said that dampened my enjoyment and was one part of why I didn't like it and the humor was not the same it was way more modern, cutting, and cynical.

Semaj, I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Rapunzel I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts. In the original The Little Mermaid she really did want to live on land with a human prince in addition to a soul, I read the book. Removing the talk about a soul was a Disney thing to do because Walt would do that for example he took out the religious stained-glass windows in Fantasia's last segment. But Tangled did un-Disney things.

I already complained a lot about The Princess and the Frog, the only thing that makes that a possible exception is it shows the original Frog Prince story so it is in a way not meant to be the original story, but I still was mad about that and you missed that thread.

Siren I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Goliath yes, arbitrary is an English word but I'm not being arbitrary no matter what you say and I explain all my reasons for what I say like up above and in the past.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:56 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Posts: 1900
Location: Mini Van Highway
And why would Prince Flynn's lanterns have any deep meaning for Peasant Rapunzel? I'm not saying that your version is worse or that Disney's is better. I do have to say, however, that the more I read from you, the less crazy I am about traditional Disney. (Don't take offense, I'm sort of kidding. :tink:)

_________________
WIST #1 (The pinkrenata Edition) -- Kram Nebuer: *mouth full of Oreos* Why do you have a picture of Bobby Driscoll?

"I'm a nudist!" - Tommy Kirk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:14 am 
Offline
Limited Edition
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 6:07 am
Posts: 1187
Location: Maine
Sotiris wrote:
From WDAS official Facebook page:

At first, I thought Disney left The Black Cauldron off that poster but if you focus on the inside of 5's tail you can see Taran's face.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:43 am 
Offline
Collector's Edition

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:18 pm
Posts: 627
I really like that poster. it kind of reminds me of those Fantasia/2000 Imax countdown posters back from its release. Btw, don't you just love how Disney's doing this by even putting the films on there that they are ashamed of? (Black Cauldron, Dinosaur, Treasure Planet, Home on the Range, etc.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:09 am 
Offline
Gold Collection
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 11:35 pm
Posts: 151
Disney Duster wrote:
I'm sad because people aren't reading what I'm saying. But I'm also happy because I know that I already explained why I'm right about what I say and the answers to their questions, so them not reading them is just ignoring them.

Disney Duster I've read most of your posts here, and you have, in no way, explained consistent or accurate or factual reason to why you're right. It'd be okay if your opinion was backed up by actual facts or problems you had with the movie, but this isn't the case. Not only have you been making up facts to fit your need, but you've been inconsistent and blatantly repeating the same things over and over again. Circular logic won't get you anywhere in a real world debate, so don't expect to get away with it with Disney fans.

Your posts are not only painful to read (I'd rather be castrated), but are unnecessarily long and full of filler that has no real rhyme or meaning. The above paragraph stands, making up facts isn't forming an opinion; it's forming a fantasy that is governed by your own rules. But the fact is that fantasy isn't reality, and it's time for you to stop pretending to be a true connoisseur such as many fans here actually are (and myself). Other people have explained this in bits, but I'm going to lay it out for you why everything in your post is wrong.

1. Stop repeating yourself.

Disney Duster wrote:
I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Disney Duster wrote:
I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

Disney Duster wrote:
I already explained the past things Disney did keep faithful that they could have easily kept. You need to read where I've already said that in past posts.

No Duster, this isn't as smart as you think it is. It's just as stupid as you said it the first time, not need to say it two more times.

2. Stop claiming you know what Disney is if you do not understand the full scope of what Disney has done in the past.

I'll preface this one. Throughout this thread, you've been going on about how Tangled isn't true to Walt Disney form by making up non-facts about how different it is in adaptation compared to the classics such as The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast. The truth is, you have not made one coherent response why you believe this, as people have have already deconstructed why your opinion is basically non-existent - but rather is just a series of claiming stuff over and over again. This isn't arguing on your part, this is just stupidity, and bad posting conduct. I've been foruming for 7 years now straight, and I can tell you that you are one of the most offensive posters I've ever encountered on the internet; and I frequent 4chan. It isn't your "opinion" but the fact that you're using lies and misinformation to support it. I've encountered furries, pedophiles, extreme racists, and misogynist on the internet and none are as bad as the stuff I've been seeing you posting all over these forums.

Now let me go through this post and tell you why you really need to re-asses your outlook on life, and re-asses how you post on a civil forum in general.

Disney Duster wrote:
I already explained that the story needed to keep the characters' background to be Disney and they still could have and had the story.

This doesn't make any sense. There is no "Disney" style aside from the art style and setup used in the movies. Every old Disney movie was different from the other, and you'll notice this if you watch each in succession like I have. There are some exceptions, of course; Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, and Cinderella are very similar to each other. However there are approximately 16 Disney "Classic" movies which I consider to be everything from Snow White to Sleeping Beauty in the Disney canon, and only THREE of them are in a similar style and tone from each other. Disney was founded upon the philosophy that change and twists to familiar stories was interesting and new, and to this day the only one that has remained even remotely accurate is probably Snow White at best. Everyone else in the "Classic" era of Disney is very different from each other. Disney wasn't even really founded on the idea of pushing musicals all over the place like in the Renaissance era of Disney, even though that is what people think of when they think of Disney.

Speaking of the Renaissance era - that, my friend, is when Disney started becoming similar to each other. I think you're confusing the Renaissance era with Classic Disney, probably due to some type of blind nostalgia fanboyism, but the Renaissance era of Disney wasn't Disney in feel, or tone, or anything of that sort. Matter of fact it took a different approach and altered the classic tales even further with modernized concepts and characters and sometimes even destroying great classics (Hunchback of Notre Dame), and made all of the movies into these musical epics. It worked, cause they were still good movies, but the "Disney feel" of them is severely overstated. There is nothing about these movies that are even remotely similar to what Walt Disney did back in the day, or the people he worked with. For this matter, Disney grew a more modernized image of what they do and what they're good at.

So if you ever want to complain about how Disney has "fallen" cause they've stopped following Walt Disney, you're approximately 62 years late. Don't get me started on how different the films in between both eras are.
Disney Duster wrote:
And I did not instantly dislike the film because of the title I said that dampened my enjoyment and was one part of why I didn't like it and the humor was not the same it was way more modern, cutting, and cynical.

This is the same with any Disney movie in the Renaissance era, and a few in between and before it. Any complaint you have with Tangled, applies to The Little Mermaid also, and Beauty and the Beast too. Mind you how I'm actually stating a fact rather than making up one? Neat, huh?
Disney Duster wrote:
In the original The Little Mermaid she really did want to live on land with a human prince in addition to a soul, I read the book. Removing the talk about a soul was a Disney thing to do because Walt would do that for example he took out the religious stained-glass windows in Fantasia's last segment. But Tangled did un-Disney things.

Okay Disney Duster, I have a test for you. I'm convinced you don't really proof-read anything you type out for various reasons, but I won't delve into that. I have a test that I think you'll end up getting unexpected results from:

Read every post you made, as if it was another person on this board.

Go ahead and try it and then post the results, and you'll see why people are so bothered by what you're posting.

One day you're going to look back at your posts, and feel so awful you made them, that you're going to regress in a state where you start claiming you were "trolling all along." No, Disney Duster, I see through your guise already; you're no troll, which is sad cause that makes things worse in the long run. But you're going to use this excuse anyway, one day, and I'll be there to remind you that you aren't a troll, just a man who can't form a proper opinion for himself. That's how all self-proclaimed trolls begin...and end. The time for you to accept your defeat is now. You aren't a true connoisseur, and you never will be with this attitude.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 1391 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Exabot [Bot], jazzflower92, Sorcerer Mickey and 9 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